maybe don’t just assume all of us knows what ‘GPR’ is. For those maybe wondering, it stands for “General Purpose Registers”.
That is stated in lesson 1. It’s in the first sentence that mentions “GPR” and in the heading directly above it.
(By the way, I’m not the author.)
Huz-fucking-zah. Independence from corporations like Google in the technologies we depend on is important, and F-Droid provides an unmatched service in support of that goal.
In matters where a server is needed, you generally have three options:
Sync to a CalDAV/CardDAV server instead of to Google. If you’re up for self-hosting, Radicale is a good and simple one.
I use DAVx⁵ on Android and Thunderbird on the desktop. Other sync clients are listed here: https://radicale.org/v3.html#supported-clients
How would the sender prevent messages from going to the admin user that joined the room?
It wouldn’t matter if a rogue admin eavesdropped on an E2EE room, because they would see encrypted blobs where the message content would be. That’s what E2EE is for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption
How would the sender prevent messages from going to the admin user that joined the room?
You’re conflating multiple things. Merely joining a room does not grant access to message decryption keys.
I respect your curiosity, but I think you’re going to have to familiarize yourself with the software and concepts to get a detailed understanding of how all this stuff works. If you’re technically inclined, I suggest reading the protocol spec, or at least the parts that interest you. You could also drop in to the public chat room and ask more questions there: #matrix:matrix.org
SimpleX has some interesting ideas, but also some shortcomings for people who want a practical messaging service. For example:
I would not recommend it for talking to family members and people in general, which is what OP requested.
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.
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.
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.
Mainly Organic Maps
Occasionally OsmAnd~, though I mostly avoid it because I found building it from source to be more annoying than it should have been, and didn’t care for a marketing campaign they ran a while back.
I guess systemd is now duplicating things that have been in unix for decades.
I find the opposite to be true. There’s nothing like being skilled in a field to make poor workmanship in that field stand out to you.
“Locked” implies no easy way of reopening.
Most counterproductive bug tracker feature ever.
I am not suggesting specific changes to your canary document. I am (a) explaining someone else’s question that you said you didn’t understand, and (b) pointing out that you might find better response if you clearly and briefly explained at the top of your post why you are posting it here.
To underscore (b): This community is not typically used as a vault for warrant canaries. An argument could be made that they don’t belong here. I don’t feel strongly about it so long as they don’t become a common source of noise, but if you can’t find a better place for them, I think the least you could do is say in one or two sentences why you’re posting one. Without requiring eighteen thousand subscribers (and uncounted additional readers) to sift through off-site links, or make sense of a single field in a wall of monspaced copypasta that has no obvious meaning to the majority of readers.
I think you’ve misunderstood my comment.
Warrant canaries are most noteworthy when they’re not published.
Something cannot be a warrant canary at all unless it is published. Did you mean to say it is most noteworthy when it has been published at least once, and then stopped being published? That would be an example of what I meant by a “change” in my comment.
Back to the original point: You said you don’t understand monk’s first question, so I tried to explain it to you: It was asking whether some change has taken place; some cause for alarm. A change in the document, or its removal, or a failure to update it.
The only way to know that it’s not published is to – publish it. Widely. And routinely.
Indeed. As I said in the last paragraph of my earlier comment.
Edit: In the future, if you’re going to post canaries to general forums like this one, you might want to include a short explanation for community members who aren’t familiar with warrant canaries, or who wonder why you’re posting one here of all places. You didn’t provide any context. I understand the value of posting it, but to most people, your post can easily be seen as irrelevant noise polluting their news feeds.
I’m not GP, but regarding 1:
Warrant canaries are only noteworthy when they are updated. GP is asking if this one was updated, as in whether some attestation was removed, implying that a warrant affecting that attestation has been served since the last one.
If no such change has taken place, then it’s still useful to have a copy of the canary publicly archived (e.g. here) for comparison to future versions, but there’s no reason for the people in this community to spend their time reading it.
I believe it will, yes.
I won’t attempt a (unsupported) downgrade :- ).
If you mean changing the apt config from trixie back to stable, that will be perfectly safe to do when trixie becomes the new stable. At that point, they will both be the same distro. The advantage of doing this is that you will automatically get the next stable release that eventually replaces trixie.
Long ago, I solved all of the ways in which PHP made me sad…
…by abandoning it.
Nowadays we have better languages that can do the job at least as well.