• 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 days ago

          While I do love your optimism and appreciate the addition of this software to our (collective) arsenal, it absolutely can. Chat Control can force the developers to add back doors, for example, or to start log collection to include IPs and PSPs, etc. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not negating the benefits of Amnesichat at all. It’s awesome. But, being a chat, it would still fall under the same regulatory nonsense as Briar, for example, which can also be run through Tor. Now, whether the developers adhere to Chat Control regulations, is another thing altogether.

          • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            If a backdoor is forced to be added into any project, wouldn’t someone be able to fork it and go on without the backdoor? Maybe even the original dev incognito…

            • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              12 days ago

              Theoretically, yes. But if it’s a legal entity that added it, they can easily circumvent any attempt to eradicate it. Or, in a more extreme way, criminalize FOSS chat apps altogether, then the code will have to be analyzed in a RE environment. Maybe the non FOSS server code is where the backdoor is added. There are so many relatively hidden ways to compromise a chat app’s supply chain.

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 days ago

                I doubt any FOSS restriction is doable at all. As for the supply chain - xz showed this is indeed possible… But no one can guarantee that every encrypted client would be able to get such a well-hidden backdoor, and that it will stay undiscovered, and that it wouldn’t be invalidated with an update… But yeah, the only way this can be combatted is having more eyes on such software.

                • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 days ago

                  I agree with you. I just don’t think “they” will take that fact and just sit with it. I think “they” will do everything they can to get multiple backdoors in there (and I use the term ‘backdoor’ loosely to mean anything that can programmatically circumvent the encryption). There are more of them, in terms of power and funding, than there are of us. They will eventually succeed, if only for short times each interval. That’s why I wrote that the solution is a chat revolution. I don’t know what that will look like, but we need something they can’t successfully attack.

                  Edit: autocorrect

    • Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      You will be surprised to learn not everyone lives in the EU ;)

      There will be a ton of great privacy services that will be unaffected or will just leave the EU market (including signal). No need to switch to a completely unproven chat.