this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
340 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59168 readers
2667 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I also don't trust Signal.. And I won't gonna switch a 4th time. I might as well switch to Matrix chat now.
I'm not sure how much we can trust matrix either to be honest. There's some cryptographic flaws in their Olm Library. https://soatok.blog/2024/08/14/security-issues-in-matrixs-olm-library/
As it turns out being both secure and convenient is very difficult
That is a pretty weak argument. The issues are minor and in a library that people are moving off of to a better build and stronger validated library. Yes, it should have been like that in the first place, but the problem is minor and being addressed.
I would look more to the various features of Matrix that aren't encrypted like room names, topics, reactions, ... and not to mention the oodles of unencrypted metadata. I really wouldn't call Matrix a high-privacy system.
I like Matrix and use it regularly, but it definitely doesn't have a privacy-first mindset like Signal does. I'm hoping that this improves over time, but without a strong privacy first leadership it seems unlikely to happen.
Olm is now deprecated and all development is now focused into Vodozemac: https://github.com/matrix-org/vodozemac. That being said, is there no proven Olm Protocol alternative implementation for e2e encryption (proven technology) instead of reinventing the wheel.
ow interesting. TIL.... Olm Protocol is a clone of Signal’s Double Ratchet.
Ow interesting.. SimpleX is also using Double Ratchet.. https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat?tab=readme-ov-file#privacy-and-security-technical-details-and-limitations
vodozemac might become that proven implementation. Without reinventing the wheel there will never be an alternative, because everyone just reuses the one existing library.
While it might be secure.. I'm done with centralized services.. If I can't host it myself, I won't bother switching anymore.
I don't know Simplex chat very well.. But that seems also good.. As long as you can have encryption and run your own server. It's not that I have anything to hide, but at the same time I'm tired of the infiltration of all states (which now also include EU).
EDIT: They need to change their name. The first results you get in search engines are this: https://www.simplex.com/ followed by (Dutch): https://simplex.nl/
Simplex doesn't support mutli-device. That's a deal breaker for me. I do 90% of my messaging at my desktop but also want to be able to chat on the go. Using my laptop on the couch is also fairly convenient.
SimpleX also loses messages if you don't pick them up in time. Going on vacation for a few weeks could be problematic, for example.
Adding to that, their notification system kinda sucks for me.
No, it does not. The closest it comes is allowing a PC to take control of a mobile client on the same local network. That might be a convenient way to type with a full-sized keyboard if you have both devices in the same place, but it is not what people mean when talking about multi-device support.
GP wants the ability to use their account from multiple devices independently. From different locations, not tethered on a LAN. With shared message history, notifications, unread state, identity, etc. That's what multi-device support means in the context of messaging services.
2 devices that can’t function independently. That would make it functionally one device. You’re just splitting hairs now.
No, lol. “Multi-device” does not just mean “multiple devices can be involved”. It means “Multiple devices can operate independently”
And you know that. But you’re splitting hairs to try and fit this use case into something it’s not.
Yes linguistically that’s what the those two words mean.
But in the context of a messaging app, “Multi device” becomes one singular term with a set meaning agreed upon by everybody but you, that you’re trying desperately to change by deconstructing the words it’s composed of in order to misrepresent something that you evidently like a whole lot.
No I mean me, the other people who’ve corrected you, the people who’ve downvoted you, and everyone else.
https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/issues/444 suggests otherwise. Do you have any information about multi-device support.
Spin up your own server for best results.
Then you only have to worry about minor metadata leakage.
https://matrix.melroy.org.. I know..
There's also SimpleX chat and Briar, but I've used both of those less than Matrix. They seem to be aiming to solve the last few issues that Matrix has, like usernames and metadata leakage.
I consider Matrix to be closer to an "Enterprise" solution, like what a business or government or non-profit would use for secure communications (literally both French and German governments use Matrix), while SimpleX/Briar seem much more aimed at individuals just wanting control over their personal conversations.
Personally I really hope that Dendrite will release a version somewhat close to v1: https://github.com/matrix-org/dendrite
The main downside of Matrix is the Synapse Python server (blurp). But Dendrite is still far for complete even years later now.
Here.. SimpleX comparison table.. Signal is also centralized.