When you login to the Vaultwarden web application it’s going to exchange your passphrase for a private key.
bitwarden is end to end encrypted: your decryption keys never leave your device, and the server certainly never sees them
you must always be able to trust your network
this would be a horrible password manager. this is also not how bitwarden works
you do still need to trust your server if you use the web interface, because any web interface can serve malicious components to exfiltrate whatever they like but native apps, assuming they’re verified appropriately, could communicate over HTTP and still not allow anyone actively monitoring your network to see any data that would be particularly useful
i’ve tried using dynamic filtering before, but honestly the UI for it is horrible… their example they give for allowing youtube embeds shows my issue with it pretty well:
their solution is either to allow everything from google.com and youtube.com, or to allow all 3rd party frames
uMatrix allows me to, for example, allow 3rd party frames only from youtube.com, and block cookies for those same frames (heck you could even allow frames and block CSS originating from google if that worked!)
this is particularly useful for analytics services… sometimes the whole page won’t load if an analytics script doesn’t load, so you can allow only scripts and block xhr so it can’t send pings back home
i use uMatrix (by the same author as uBlock Origin), which essentially allows very granular control over what dynamic content to allow:
per domain and subdomain you can allow script, xhr, media, frames, cookies, images, css, and other things
so you can say, for example, on lemm.ee deny any scripts from google.com from loading and deny any xhr (so analytics can’t work even if the script is hosted on the sites own domain)
this stops a lot of fingerprinting in its tracks (except when you need to allow eg reCAPTCHA), but it does break pretty much every website until you go and allow only known good things (like scripts and xhr to the sites own domain)
there’s also server-side fingerprinting, which is harder again
wow equating Nazis with communists - now there’s a false equivalence
I think we would do well to turn down the temperature a bit and try to understand each other rather than throw around these big insulting words that clearly we don’t really understand.
what a great way to turn down the temperature! being condescending… good work bud
perhaps take a look at the comment votes once in a while and do some self-reflection on your communication style, if not the correctness of your statements and either say: sorry, i’m clearly miscommunicating, or sorry you’re right
that’s all not necessarily true
for starters: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
but also perhaps more academically because signal (i believe) doesn’t do this, so it’s more a comment on the information that the server “must know”
signal uses the double ratchet protocol to derive shared keys between users already. if we extend this a little further to exchange a separate shared identifier for use in retrieving conversaiton data, and a place to store that data the the only information that the server gets is a couple of initialisation messages, and the rest is entirely opaque - there’s no way to know (other than tracing e2e messages based on IP address, and there are mitigations for that too) who is communicating with who, at what rate, etc
there are other ways to validate things like rate limits, etc that don’t involve identity directly, or at least don’t trust any single party with all data
okay, but reproducible builds solve the rest of that problem
i went to the mozilla donation page and sent a contact request about wanting to financially support firefox but not giving a damn about the rest of the AI and adtech slop that mozilla is doing
here’s the response, for anyone that’s interested
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us. We genuinely value hearing from our supporters, as your insights help us understand what matters most to the Mozilla community.
It’s important to note that the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation are two separate entities within the Mozilla umbrella - Mozilla Corporation is responsible for developing and maintaining Firefox and other software products, and they are continuously working on improving the user experience, including addressing compatibility issues and promoting the browser to a wider audience.
The Mozilla Foundation, on the other hand, focuses on broader internet health and advocacy work. Our mission is to ensure the internet remains open and accessible for everyone, and this includes issues related to privacy, digital rights, and equity. To confirm, the survey that you had received was from the Mozilla Foundation.
With that being said, Firefox is funded by revenue generated through the product rather than donations. At the moment, there is no way for supporters to make a donation that will be designated to the development of Firefox. Have no fear, things are looking good for Firefox’s future and they plan to be around a long time, supporting folks with the most secure browser experience! Continuing to use Firefox, and recommending it to others, is the best way to support this project.
We truly appreciate your concerns about Firefox and their top priorities - We on the Mozilla Foundation strongly believe that issues such as privacy, online safety, and data security are connected to the products and services we all use every day. The work we do in these areas complements Mozilla Corporation’s focus on building better, more secure software like Firefox, and w encourage you to participate in our survey!
If you would like to input some of your thoughts and ideas into our Ideas discussion forum regarding Firefox and other Mozilla products, please visit: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/idb-p/ideas
We thank you again for reaching out to our Mozilla Foundation Donor Care team, and please let us know if we can support your further!
if a govt seizes a device and discovers channel IDs to be taken down, i’m sure than signal would do so - there have been no arrest warrants, after all… however, the problem is also significantly smaller for signal because signal can’t have enormous broadcast groups
it’s kinda irrelevant what it is - you have to comply with police orders to moderate your platform… if this were musk and x lemmy would be cheering on the arrest! no matter who you are, you don’t shouldn’t get to just break the law
and you’re right CSAM is frequently used as an excuse, and no i don’t have evidence - that would require actually looking for said content, which i have no inclination to do. the only information i have is that multiple independent news outlets have referenced telegram for years - not proof, but a more convincing argument than simply denial - because let’s not kid ourselves, unless you’ve gone looking for that content, you’ve got no proof against it either (and even if you didn’t find it, that’s no guarantee either - it’s unlikely easy to find)
and this is called the slippery slope fallacy and is either a flaw in your logic or a way of arguing in bad faith. either way, it’s just fearmongering. if that’s all you’ve got then i have nothing more to say
we don’t disagree about that: governments don’t like that telegram doesn’t cooperate; that’s not in dispute
where the disagreement comes is the part after. telegram (and indeed meta, google, etc) have that data at their disposal. when served with a legal notice to provide information to authorities or shut down illegal behaviour on their platforms, they comply - sometimes that’s a bad thing if the government is overreaching, but sometimes it’s also a good thing (in the case of CSAM and other serious crimes)
there are plenty of clear cut examples of where telegram should shut down channels - CSAM etc… that’s what this arrest was about; the rest is academic
free speech can be good. free speech can also be bad. overall, it’s more good than bad however society seems to agree that free speech has limits - you can’t defame someone, for example
free speech absolutism is fucking dumb; just like most other absolutist stances
this also isn’t even about free speech - this is about someone having access to information requested by investigators to solve crimes, and then refusing to give that information
i neither have the time nor inclination to research to that degree - i’m merely saying that the bounties prove very little, and change nothing about how people should treat non-standard protocols and algorithms. in fact, the lack of substance is proof that they don’t fully understand the scope of what’s required in the field of security
telegram put up bounties relating to specific properties of their encryption, yes but there’s more to private messaging than just encryption… for example afaik it’s trivial to do things like replay attacks
their encryption may not be flawed, but they failed to design an algorithm that protects against the wide array of modern attacks, as they are mathematicians; not security experts. they understood the maths, but not the wider scope of implementation
a good example of these is linked down thread about MLS
Security properties of MLS include message confidentiality, message integrity and authentication, membership authentication, asynchronicity, forward secrecy, post-compromise security, and scalability.
the telegram bounties afaik only cover 1 security property
and in the same way, perhaps stop saying “westerners”
many us had the same thought that it’s xenophobic bullshit… perhaps we all should stop arbitrarily grouping people into geographic groups and making sweeping generalisations
and saying that the USA is dumber than a donkey and implying that china is not is just fucking laughable… i’m aussie, so i have no horse in either race: our economy is almost entirely reliant on china and we rely on the USA for basically everything else, including protection from china… and yknow what? all cultures are fucking weird… stop being so god damn condescending. the only thing it proves is that you’ve never travelled enough, or that “different” makes you uncomfortable which makes you an incurable bigot
the australian government (i know, slightly different level of security and requirement) does an interesting thing where when you take a photo in their identity app it flashes a bunch of different colours very quickly. i assume it takes several photos with different colours to help ensure that shadows are behaving correctly (perhaps it also helps with adding detail for facial recognition and rejection?)
… kinda unrelated, but i’ve always found it fascinating
you’re saying a buzz word without understanding the trade offs in designs… POW doesn’t have to imply higher energy cost for more transactions: shove more transactions in a block and POW cost is the same… that’s a trade off sure because then a block becomes a more valuable thing to 51%
POW is also only 1 of a lot of different consensus algorithms, all with their own trade-offs… POS benefits those with money for example (although you can still form mining pools - TBH i’d argue it’s exactly the same in this respect to POW in practice - good luck mining anything of value in POW without investing $ millions)
some blockchains aren’t built to be entirely trustless and uncoordinated, merely semi trusted and loosely coordinated (think a consortium of banks - they don’t trust each other entirely but a blockchain means no individual member working alone can cheat. in this case because it’s semi-organised they can use POS with a special token and delegate those “mining tokens” 1 per member of the consortium or something… you can even set this kind of chain up as an ethereum side chain!)
aren’t needed for regular transactions
but that kinda defeats the point of a central authority having control: the value of any currency is entirely based on what you can use it for… unless you tied their value in a way that the government regulates - eg to have a banking license you must swap USD for eUSD and visa versa on a 1:1 basis without fees (perhaps they burn eUSD to get new USD; IDK - you can’t oversupply. it gets tricky)… anyway, beside the point: regular transactions is exactly what the government needs some control over
imo i actually hate the idea of a public crypto currency
people think that the government having their hands on the levers of a fiat currency is a bad thing, but it’s an incredibly useful property to make sure that we can stabilise things and push away from recession etc! without those levers we can end up in a spiral a lot easier
i think though that where these problems don’t exist is behind the scenes: what if the whole world replaced SWIFT with a private blockchain? maybe a wire transfer wouldn’t take 5 days and cost like $20 (or maybe it would because it’s probably not the technology that makes these things slow)… in this case, you have a known group of semi-trusted actors (international banks), which is actually a perfect set of properties for a blockchain: they’re all able to cooperate but don’t implicitly trust, and can verify each other but mainly use blockchain so they can all automatically agree
and here lies the issue with asking about crypto in non-crypto circles… everyone thinks they completely understand blockchain in its entirely. what they actually have is a rudimentary understanding of a single blockchain as it was literally 15 years ago
of course the problem with asking in crypto circles is that they’re all trying to sell you their new big thing which is probably total trash
so really there’s no good way to ask and get reasonable answers about crypto
which endpoint are you referring to?
there are passwords exchanged when using the vault management API, but AFAIK that’s for local access (eg CLI talking to the app)
i’m no expert on the specifics of the API; just in the description they give: https://bitwarden.com/help/what-encryption-is-used/
this is exactly the way this should be done. any deviation from this formula by a password manager with a server component should be viewed with extreme scepticism