probably not… Because I’m comparing it to everything… but id like to share some details about how my app works so you can tell me what im missing. id like to have wording in my app to say something like “most secure chat app in the world”… i probably cant do that because it doesnt qualify… but i want to understand why?
im not a cyber security expert. im sure there are many gaps in my knowlege of this domain.
using javascript, i created a chat app. it is using peerjs-server to create an encrypted webrtc connection. this is then used to exchange additional encryption keys from cryptography functions built into browsers to add a redundent layer of encryption. the key exchange is done like diffie-helman over webrtc (which can be considered secure when exchanged over public channels)
i sometimes recieve feedback like “javascript is inherently insecure”. i disagree with this and have opened sourced my cryptography module. its basically a thin wrapper around vanilla crypto functions of a browser. a prev post on the matter.
another concern for my kind of app (PWA) is that the developer may introduce malicious code. this is an important point for which i open sourced the project and give instructions for selfhosting. selhosting this app has some unique features. unlike many other selfhosted projects, this app can be hosted on github-pages for free and instructions are provided. im also working on introducing a way that users can selfhost federated modules. a prev post on the matter.
to prevent things like browser extensions, the app uses strict CSP headers to prevent unauthorised code from running. selfhosting users should take note of this when setting up their own instance.
i often get touted things like the Signal/Simplex protocol is amazing and great, etc. id like to compare that opinion to the observation in how my todo app demo works. (the work is all experimental work-in-progress and far from finished). the demo shows a simple functionality for a basic decentralized todo list. this should already be reasonably secure. i could add a few extra endpoints for exchanging keys diffie-helman style. which at this point is relatively trivial to implement. I think it’s simplicity could be a security feature.
i think if i stick to the principle of avoiding using any kind of “required” service provider (myself included) and allowing the frontend and the peerjs-server to be hosted independently, im on track for creating a chat system with the “fewest moving parts”. im hope you will agree this is true p2p and i hope i can use this as a step towards true privacy and security. security might be further improved by using a trusted VPN.
i created a threat-model for the app in hopes that i could get a pro-bono security assessment, but understandable the project is too complicated for pro-bono work.
i created a decentralized todo list demo using the p2p framework used in the chat app. this is to demonstrate the bare-minimum functionality of decentralised messaging and state management.
while there are several similar apps out there like mine. i think mine is distinctly a different approach so its hard to find best practices for the functionalities i want to achieve. in particular security practices to use when using p2p technology.
The problem with web apps is that even if the messenger is perfectly secure your web browser/webview provider might not be. Like with windows recall, even if you have the most secure messenger it doesn’t matter if an underlying function scans your info. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be the option for a webapp, but it shouldn’t be the default.
Browsers, operating system and peers can become compromised.
Ultimately users have to be responsible with how and who they connect to. The app otherwise is only as secure and as restricted as any other website. As a web app there are nice features like being able to inspect network activity and code.
A typical mainstream browser can be considered to have been sufficiently reviewed. But you aren’t limited like you would be if the offering was from an app store.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
The problem with web apps is that even if the messenger is perfectly secure your web browser/webview provider might not be. Like with windows recall, even if you have the most secure messenger it doesn’t matter if an underlying function scans your info. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be the option for a webapp, but it shouldn’t be the default.
I can’t think of how p2p messengers even could have webapp.
Browsers, operating system and peers can become compromised.
Ultimately users have to be responsible with how and who they connect to. The app otherwise is only as secure and as restricted as any other website. As a web app there are nice features like being able to inspect network activity and code.
A typical mainstream browser can be considered to have been sufficiently reviewed. But you aren’t limited like you would be if the offering was from an app store.