this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2021
57 points (96.7% liked)
Open Source
31173 readers
426 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're considering E2EE you're already considering that the server cannot be trusted (AKA it wants to spy on you).
It's not about defaults, it's about the fact that you're doing crypto to protect yourself from the server, using code that the server just sent you.
This is the key point of the post:
If you're serious about security, the only good way to do it is to not do it at all. It really pisses me off that even password manager don't care.
By "not doing it at all" I mean redirect people towards full blown apps that can do proper crypto.
Ah, yes, makes sense. Solutions to this may be to use client applications, local storage in browsers or checksumming.
There are still many issues with that. This stackoverflow discussion shows that it is not really possible to do. Some of the points are irrelevant, but the general takeway is that local storage, caches and all are not designed for security but for performance.
The thing is that the browser is absolutely not designed for this kinds of uses.