So, I was told to not use Signal, so all that is left is Matrix. And I am not techy enough to have my own server and neither are my relatives, so Matrix.org is the only option

  • refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Unfortunately even with E2EE, the admins of a homeserver can still impersonate you or take over your channel.

    Of course you could run your own instance, or maybe none of this is part of your threat model, but I felt like bringing it up either way.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      even with E2EE, the admins of a homeserver can still impersonate you

      No, they cannot. Your homeserver admin could create an impostor login session on your account, but it would be pointless with E2EE, because it would be flagged with an obviously visible warning. You and all of your contacts would see that the impostor session was not verified as you (this typically shows up as a bright red icon on the impostor and another one on the room they’re in) and the impostor would be unable to read your communications.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        What do you have to say about this then?

        In an encrypted room even with fully verified members, a compromised or hostile home server can still take over the room by impersonating an admin. That admin (or even a newly minted user) can then send events or listen on the conversations.

        Perhaps we have a different definition of “impersonate”… not everyone will pay attention to unverified warnings, and afaik they can still communicate with people (just maybe not read old messages)… but I would love to be proven wrong.

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          a compromised or hostile home server can still take over the room

          A compromised server could affect a denial of service attack against its users, of course. The attacker could do the same thing by simply turning off the server. That’s true on all platforms that use servers. A reasonable response would be to switch to a different server.

          That admin (or even a newly minted user) can then send events

          Exactly what events do you think would be dangerous?

          or listen on the conversations.

          No. End-to-end encryption ensures that only the intended endpoints can read the messages. Older Matrix clients have a setting to block the user from sending messages to unverified devices/sessions, in case they somehow don’t understand the meaning of a bright red warning icon. I think newer ones (e.g. Element X) enforce that mode; if you’re concerned about this, you could check for yourself, but…

          not everyone will pay attention to unverified warnings

          …unfortunately, there are no guarantees when trying to fix human behavior. If you need a messaging app to make it hard for your contacts to do something obviously foolish, then I suggest waiting until Matrix 2.0 is officially released and implemented in the clients. The beta versions of Element X, for example, look like everything is locked down to avoid human mistakes like the one you’re describing.

          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            35 minutes ago

            End-to-end encryption ensures that only the intended endpoints can read the messages

            But who/what gets to decide who the intended recipients are? Can’t the homeserver admin just join the channel and then the other members would exchange keys automatically and now they can see what people say?

            • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 minutes ago

              But who/what gets to decide who the intended recipients are?

              The sender, of course.

              Can’t the homeserver admin just join the channel and then the other members would exchange keys automatically and now they can see what people say?

              No. Verification prevents that.

              • refalo@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 minutes ago

                I don’t understand. How would the sender prevent messages from going to the admin user that joined the room? It sounds like you’re implying new users simply can’t join a room? That makes no sense to me… I’ve certainly never experienced that. I see new users join encrypted rooms all the time and they can talk just fine… so what’s the deal? And isn’t verification off by default?