mesa@piefed.social to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoGiving Up on Element & Matrix.orgxn--gckvb8fzb.comexternal-linkmessage-square98fedilinkarrow-up1233arrow-down114
arrow-up1219arrow-down1external-linkGiving Up on Element & Matrix.orgxn--gckvb8fzb.commesa@piefed.social to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square98fedilink
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up19arrow-down2·1 day agoIt is entirely insecure.
minus-squareInFerNo@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 hours agoThe argument has always been, if when chat rooms are public, anyone can join and start logging the chats, encryption does nothing. It has the ability to connect over TLS, but that’s about it. I loved using it for its simplicity, except when using all the different flavours of nick registration (Q, NickServ, …).
minus-squareExFed@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down1·1 day agoNot when the entirety of your conversations are jargon and in-jokes! /s
minus-squareVanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·22 hours agoxmpp isn’t. (Ok I get xmpp alone is but every modern client supports the same two encryption methods so judge for yourself)
minus-squareundrwater@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·19 hours agoDefine secure. You can run your own network.
It is entirely insecure.
The argument has always been, if when chat rooms are public, anyone can join and start logging the chats, encryption does nothing.
It has the ability to connect over TLS, but that’s about it.
I loved using it for its simplicity, except when using all the different flavours of nick registration (Q, NickServ, …).
Not when the entirety of your conversations are jargon and in-jokes!
/s
xmpp isn’t.
(Ok I get xmpp alone is but every modern client supports the same two encryption methods so judge for yourself)
Define secure. You can run your own network.