Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar Richard Carback

I think we more or less agree, but the properties here differ and there's room for more than one solution. For example - What you linked seems good but can't work for large groups at first glance (it also suffers from much more severe comms patterns analysis attacks).

Modifying the invite link to ping a coordinator for the final channel info (I.e. accept the invite) is easy to do and would eliminate the threat you outline. There might be other options like adding a password.

I don't object to the analysis so much as dismissing the entire approach as unsound. I'm advocating for constructive collaboration. (And I've got no dog in this fight, I'd love to work on this but I'm too busy with my other projects right now).

Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

I agree with the multiple approaches. And, yes a large group will need a different protocol. But there are so many possible solutions that it's hard to settle for a secret-based approach. At least, I have not seen a good protocol yet. Especially when the group is indeed large: it just takes 1 person out of 10,000 people to not make it private.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.