Hello. I am looking for an alternative to Telegram and I prefer an application that uses decentralised servers. My question is: why is the xmpp+omemo protocol not recommended on websites when it is open source and decentralised? The privacyguides.org website does not list xmpp+omemo as a recommended messaging service. Nor does this website include it in its comparison of private messaging services.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/assets/img/cover/real-time-communication.webp

Why do you think xmpp and its messaging clients such as Conversations, Movim, Gajim, etc. do not appear in these guides?

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Sure. If a state serves a subpoena to gather logs for metadata analysis, sealed sender will prevent associating senders to receivers, making this task very difficult.

    Pre sealed-sender they already claimed not to keep metadata logs, so, complying with such a subpoena[1] should already have required them to change the behavior of their server software.

    If a state wanted to order them to add metadata logging in a non-sealed-sender world, wouldn’t they also probably ask them to log IPs for all client-server interactions (which would enable breaking sealed-sender through a trivial correlation)?

    Note that defeating sealed sender doesn’t require any kind of high-resolution timing or costly analysis; with an adversary-controlled server (eg, one where a state adversary has compelled the operator to alter the server’s behavior via a National Security Letter or something) it is easy to simply record the IP which sent each “sealed” message and also record which account(s) are checked from which IPs at all times.


    1. it would more likely be an NSL or some other legal instrument rather than a subpoena ↩︎

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yes, subpoena was poorly worded. NSL is more likely. But still it is a time-forward threat, which means there is value while the server is or was accepting sealed sender.

      And I wasn’t suggesting timing attack is required to defeat sealed sender. I was, on the contrary, pointing out that was a threat even with sealed sender. Though that is non-trivial, especially with CGNAT.

      So in summary. You’re right. Sealed sender is not a great solution. But it is a mitigation for the period where those messages are being accepted. A better solution is probably out there. I hope somebody implements it. In the meantime, for somebody who needs that level of metadata privacy, Signal isn’t the solution; maybe cwtch or briar.