Thanks, I will share your feedback internally and get back to you with a more details ๐
topsecret_chat
joined 1 year ago
Hi, the client-code is naturally open, while currently the core-engine is kept highly encrypted and we do not publish it (yet) as open-source.
There are different views with pros & cons about opening it, regarding confidential comms.
Anyway we are independently pen-tested by volunteers. Thanks
The client-code is naturally open, while currently the core-engine is kept highly encrypted and we do not publish it (yet) as open-source.
There's a bit of a debate about pros & cons of opening it, regarding confidential comms.
Anyway we are independently pen-tested by volunteers.
Thanks for asking ๐
A rival sounds more like fighting against, but we rather designed a complementary solution that secure your data and metadata also while is use.
With Confidential Computing the messages are not traditionally stored/deleted, but they operate in a memory enclave so they cannot be retrieved with forensic technology... of course this comes with a capacity limit, focusing on (few) highly confidential comms.
We'll take the feedback about the hashtags in consideration. Thanks
@133arc585
Yes, walking the first steps here in Mastodon :-)
We are volunteers operating under an NGO based in Ireland... not rival of Signal, WhatsApp (or similar), but instead a complement for higher privacy
Sorry for the several hashtags, it's just the habit when posting
@133arc585
A brief feedback summary ๐
100% secure code is ideal but never the case: bugs, vulnerabilities, patches exist always. Hence, option one (100% secure) cannot be really considered in a real-world scenario.
Option two (not 100% secure) is not a binary choice: open-source is great but has wider implications other than peer/security review. Rights, alteration, distribution (etc) are to be considered too. We started with mixed open & closed source code, aiming to improve. Read next