Session | Send Messages, Not Metadata. | Private Messenger
getsession.org
Session is a private messenger that aims to remove any chance of metadata collection by routing all messages through an onion routing network.

I’m aware that Session has been discussed twice before on this community, but the last thread was 6 months old so excuse my starting a new one.

There’s one big concern I wanted to bring up, which is the disagreements over whether it has forward secrecy. The spec says it does, but I’ve found two other sources saying it doesn’t:

https://restoreprivacy.com/secure-encrypted-messaging-apps/session/ (search for “Perfect Forward Secrecy removed”) https://www.securemessagingapps.com

Why are they saying this? Is there a critical caveat to Session’s forward secrecy (does it not have it in closed groups?), or are both sources just wrong?

(I’ve also heard one source say its closed groups are limited to 10 members which would be a showstopper for me and another source say they’re limited to 100 and the spec says 500 so i don’t know what to believe.)

I’m also concerned about it being built on top of a blockchain and cryptocurrency, not because I’m suspicious of cryptocurrency in general but because I find it difficult to understand, and because that it costs thousands of dollars to run a Session node seems to me like the network is bound to be owned exclusively by a few rich companies and investors. Is it? Is there a place I can see who owns how much of it, particularly how much is owned by the Oxen developers?

UPDATE: I believe I’ve just learned that Sesison DOES NOT have forward secrecy or deniability; the whitepaper linked on their CURRENT website is outdated. https://getsession.org/blog/session-protocol-technical-information

  • Yujiri@lemmy.mlOP
    51·
    3 years ago

    The freedom to not have your money controlled by state and/or capitalist institutions such as banks and payment processors. This is actually a huge deal IMO. With traditional fiat currency, you are completely at the mercy of every financial institution you deal with - your bank account can be closed or locked or your money seized by the government, and every time you buy anything with a bank card you’re really giving the merchant full access to all your money and just hoping they don’t abuse it. And they do. Who hasn’t had experiences having illegitimate charges appear in your account history, struggling to figure out how to cancel a subscription before the corporation charges you again without consent, or charged more money at a store than you were told it would be and not realizing it until it was too late? Cryptocurrency has issues, but the fact that it gives you control of your own money is very important to me.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.de
      2·
      3 years ago

      The same thing is true with cryptocurrency though? Most people have their cryptobucks at a wallet that sits at an exchange? Which then has the same drawbacks as a bank.

      • Yujiri@lemmy.mlOP
        2·
        3 years ago

        I don’t know if it’s true that “most people” have their cryptobucks in custodial wallets, but the point of cryptocurrency is that you don’t need to do that. You can pay online using a wallet you control (and I have done so), which is impossible with traditional currency.

        • sexy_peach@feddit.de
          2·
          3 years ago

          What cryptocurrency that’s properly decentralized can handle enough transactions for it to be useful?

          I think having democratic control (via the state) over the money is pretty important. Also cash has a lot of advantages as well.

          • Yujiri@lemmy.mlOP
            31·
            3 years ago

            The state is the greatest enemy of human freedom and peace, so I will withdraw from this thread.

              • Yujiri@lemmy.mlOP
                2·
                3 years ago

                Of course, I am an anarchist! Though I am curious what distinction you’re drawing between states and governments.

                • sexy_peach@feddit.de
                  2·
                  3 years ago

                  I think that a local government of people who are appointed by the people to do something specific would be viable in an anarchist society. To me the point is that these people can’t make broad decisions on their own, they have to be sent with an assignment.

                  • Yujiri@lemmy.mlOP
                    1·
                    3 years ago

                    This sounds exactly like the typical rhetoric shared by socdems and constitutionalists: saying that the government is “appointed by the people”, when in fact every official or law supported by some of the people is opposed by the rest of the people.

                    To me the point is that these people can’t make broad decisions on their own, they have to be sent with an assignment.

                    This seems too vague to be a meaningful difference. What is a “broad” decision? What sort of assignment will they be “sent” with? What exactly can these people do, and what happens if some of the people don’t like their decision?