8 monthsTL;dr of the article :
- They keep your private key on their servers.
- Their implementation allows for AITM attacks.
- It’s closed source.
- There’s no perfect forward secrecy.
This secret stays between you, me, and Elon.
I hope politicians use the hell out of it, so we can see what they really think when it gets (inevitably) hacked in a few weeks.
- 8 months
This is the first time I heard of AITM, thought it was a new name for MITM:
- KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish8 months
Are you sure that site is trustworthy? It kinda reads like an LLM being told to explain the difference between two names for the same thing and basically rephrasing the same thing. I’d imagine it might just be a different name to get rid of a male-coded word.
- 8 months
They keep your private key on their servers.
Then it’s literally not even E2EE, lol
I used to give the benefit of the doubt but when there are bad incentives in play and shit keeps happening… then perhaps that is naïve sometimes, unfortunately.
Do you mean bad incentives?
And sure, I don’t disagree, but these people are also not actually that smart. I would worry more about this getting hacked in a week way before Elon gets a chance to use it against anyone.
offering me end-to-end encrypted chat
No one - not even X - can access or read your messages
This key is then stored on X’s servers
So…they’re just blatantly lying?
- 8 months
Right, they have the key, and the lock, but the key isn’t in the lock, so it’s utterly impossible for them to access it.
- InnerScientist@lemmy.worldEnglish8 months
It’s encrypted with a 4 digit pin so they’ll have to spend at least 316.8809e-10 years on brute-forcing it.
- adarza@lemmy.caEnglish8 months
One. Two. Three. Four. Five?
That’s amazing. I’ve got the same combination on my luggage.
- 8 months
No - did you even read the article? An x employee confirmed that they’re using the “special” servers to store the keys that mean that they cannot see them. The author then says that the employee confirming it doesn’t mean they do, because the author doesn’t want it to be true.
- Natanael@infosec.pubEnglish8 months
There are hardware for that called hardware security modules, but yeah I definitely wouldn’t trust Twitter’s implementation - especially because they probably just need the auth team to tell the HSM that the user logged in when they didn’t to get that key
A proper implementation would use multiple security measures and require a reset (delete) of certain private account data before the account access can be reset, otherwise the user’s password would be needed (for key derivation) or some other secret held by the user’s devices (in the TPM chip or equivalent)
- 8 months
So again, you think you know better than the employee simply because you want it to be done incorrectly.
- Natanael@infosec.pubEnglish8 months
I’ve run a cryptography forum for 10 years. I can tell snake oil from the real deal.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t know how to do key distribution. The only major company using HSMs the way Musk intends to is Apple, and they have far more and much more experienced cryptographers than X does.
- 8 months
So again - you just don’t want it to be true, and you think the people that know more than you about it are lying.
- 8 months
You sound like a conspiracy theorist defending wearing an aluminium foil hat.
- 8 months
That “yet” is the narrative hook to trick us into feeling like it will soon be trustworthy, and that our assumed suspicions refer to a temporary state of untrustworthiness. Clever girls!
- 8 months
I think you can install your own bluseky instance and federated with others.
I don’t consider the PDS stuff to be fully federated. That’s just keeping your data on a different server, as far as I understand it. To be federated it needs to be a full interoperable server like mastodon, or lemmy.
You should also be able to host a non federated instance, or one with limited federation.
If they have moved past that, and I can open a server and have people sign up for accounts, then I stand corrected.
- Natanael@infosec.pubEnglish8 months
Bluesky federates across different layers, it’s modular, it doesn’t have a comparable same-layer federation. It is fully interoperable, just not by the method you’re used to.
You can host your own partial appview now (caching and indexing your and your friends’ comment), and multiple people have managed to run their own relays for cheap (caching most of the posts in the network), and you can pull the rest of data you need to browse from the other relays and use the service as usual. You can run your own moderation labeler, use your own app, just your own account, etc…
Just look at the interoperable blacksky project by a bunch of black devs making their own infrastructure for accounts and moderation, etc.
To be non federated, all you have to do is not announce your server and not accept arbitrary connections
Due to content addressing, limited federation isn’t really a thing by the usual definition. You can filter content from any PDS you don’t like, but can’t really control who can see already public posts
- 8 months
How about: “You probably should trust or use X at all… ever.”
Hey y’all. Reminder not to trust a platform owned and operated by a Nazi manchild.
- Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish8 months
Yet? What kind of idiot would imagine that X would or could provide actual secure communication?
- 8 months
XChat, has some red flags.
With a white circle and a swastika inside?
- 6nk06@sh.itjust.worksEnglish8 months
Our good friend Elon cannot be trusted? I don’t believe you, this must be propaganda to discredit his good manners.
Why are people evening using this site anymore? It’s been severely compromised.
Cause it has an audience unlike mastodon or bluesky. All the other alternatives are dead.
but bluesky(i think similar to twitter but slightly lower users??) has a bigger audience then mastodon, most people i saw there still use twitter.
