mima,

I think at this point it's worth thinking about why we need text chats and voice/video calls integrated with each other like what (try to), , and do

Why not just go back to or something like for text, and something like for calls like the old days ​:sagume_think:​

RE: https://fedi.catboy.agency/notes/9op18npi5hjw1553

lispi314,
@lispi314@udongein.xyz avatar

@mima The answer largely boils down to annoyance and shitty inter-system ergonomics.

While integration removes the inter-system problems, instead one just gets lackluster intra-system problems instead.

Also, Discord is proprietary SaaSS anathema, so referenced post's opinion discarded.

untsuki,
@untsuki@udongein.xyz avatar

@lispi314 @mima

I'm pretty sure that person hates it being a proprietary shit too. The point is, you are forced to use it if you need to talk to someone who you cannot to use subpar foss alternatives.

The other issue is we don't have basically anything decent (and not proprietart) to fallback to for separating them, since:

For text IRC is too barebones, XMPP has it's own problems, Matrix is unreliable, and Delta chat is hacky.

For voice we have Mumble, but it requires hosting it since it is mot designed for using it for public server but having private spaces in it.

lispi314,
@lispi314@udongein.xyz avatar

@untsuki @mima Last I tested it, Mumble has support for voice rooms and logins.

Other than P2P, pretty much everything requires hosting?

untsuki,
@untsuki@udongein.xyz avatar

@lispi314 @mima As far as I know, Mumble doesn't support any e2e encryption for so you need to really trust server admin, where point of XMPP/Matrix likes is that you either can selfhost yourself only, or not self host at all and still get some level of privacy via encryption.

Still, yeah, it may be okay if you can set it up for your friend group. For text, I am not sure what I can use even for people I can put through spme inconviniences.

lispi314,
@lispi314@udongein.xyz avatar

@untsuki @mima I'm not sure whether OMEMO actually does cover voice chat. Does it?

The raw XMPP-level specs definitely don't have encryption covering any of the VoIP, nor the file exchanges.

Not sure if Matrix does any better in private/encrypted group chats.

debacle,
@debacle@framapiaf.org avatar

@lispi314 @mima @untsuki

TTBOMK, "modern" (i.e. WebRTC based) A/V calls in are always e2e encrypted. That's what , , and are doing.

File exchange in nowadays is either HTTP upload (covered by ) or file transfer, which should be e2e encrypted, too, but I'm not sure about it.

Monal,
@Monal@fosstodon.org avatar

@debacle you forgot to list monal in your list of clients supporting a/v calls ;)

Goffi,
@Goffi@mastodon.social avatar

@Monal @debacle and Libervia (Web, desktop and CLI, with desktop sharing support, admittedly on dev version, soon to be released).

Goffi,
@Goffi@mastodon.social avatar

@debacle @lispi314 @mima @untsuki actually A/V calls in XMPP are not "always" e2ee as the DTLS-SRTP fingerprint is not encrypted with legacy OMEMO. It is with OMEMO:2 and Stanza Content Encryption support, or for client implementing the non-standard "hack" at https://gist.github.com/iNPUTmice/aa4fc0aeea6ce5fb0e0fe04baca842cd .

Goffi,
@Goffi@mastodon.social avatar

@debacle @lispi314 @mima @untsuki to be more clear, it is indeed "always encrypted", but with the fingerprint in clear and forgeable, MITM attack is doable relatively easily. if OMEMO:2 with SCE or Daniel's hack is used, it should be fine, but not all clients are implementing them.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • Matrix
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • InstantRegret
  • Durango
  • Youngstown
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • thenastyranch
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • magazineikmin
  • anitta
  • cubers
  • vwfavf
  • modclub
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines