▲ 191 ▼ Nothing Chats, an iMessage app for Android, is a privacy nightmare (9to5google.com) submitted 2 years ago by ijeff@lemdro.id [M] to c/android@lemdro.id 18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's E2EE from the sender to your Beeper server, where it's decrypted, then re-encypted as a Matrix message. Then it's not E2E encrypted. One end is your device, the other end is the other device. It's only E2E encrypted if it is not decrypted until it reaches the other device. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sticking two E2EE tunnels together with a plaintext middleman doesn't result in a single E2EE tunnel. The reason the distinction is important is because the security profile is vastly different—a compromised server leads to a compromised message—which isn't true for actual E2EE services like a pure Matrix link. Side note: the first thing you should ask of a "end-to-end encrypted" product to you is "which 'ends' do you mean?" I've seen TLS advertised as E2EE before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Adding: TLS is actually a pretty apt analogy here. You could make a chat server that just accepts plain text messages over a TLS link, and that's basically the same security topology as with this Beeper bridge. But no one would call that a E2EE chat. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sticking two E2EE tunnels together with a plaintext middleman doesn't result in a single E2EE tunnel. The reason the distinction is important is because the security profile is vastly different—a compromised server leads to a compromised message—which isn't true for actual E2EE services like a pure Matrix link. Side note: the first thing you should ask of a "end-to-end encrypted" product to you is "which 'ends' do you mean?" I've seen TLS advertised as E2EE before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Adding: TLS is actually a pretty apt analogy here. You could make a chat server that just accepts plain text messages over a TLS link, and that's basically the same security topology as with this Beeper bridge. But no one would call that a E2EE chat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sticking two E2EE tunnels together with a plaintext middleman doesn't result in a single E2EE tunnel. The reason the distinction is important is because the security profile is vastly different—a compromised server leads to a compromised message—which isn't true for actual E2EE services like a pure Matrix link. Side note: the first thing you should ask of a "end-to-end encrypted" product to you is "which 'ends' do you mean?" I've seen TLS advertised as E2EE before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Adding: TLS is actually a pretty apt analogy here. You could make a chat server that just accepts plain text messages over a TLS link, and that's basically the same security topology as with this Beeper bridge. But no one would call that a E2EE chat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Adding: TLS is actually a pretty apt analogy here. You could make a chat server that just accepts plain text messages over a TLS link, and that's basically the same security topology as with this Beeper bridge. But no one would call that a E2EE chat. permalink fedilink source parent