BjoernSchiessle

Born on November 13, 2015•11 Karma

on April 6, 2020

•on: Running your own secure communication service with...

The article describes how to add your own Jitsi server to your self hosted Riot. But does this affect my desktop and mobile clients as well? And how do I set up my own Jitsi server when I use only the mobile and desktop apps from Riot?

Arathorn•

on April 6, 2020

We're currently updating the mobile & Desktop apps to be able to use self-hosted Jitsi properly - sadly it hasn't landed yet :(

Arathorn•

on April 6, 2020

Desktop support is now in PR: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk/pull/4348

BjoernSchiessle•

on Jan 19, 2017

•on: About backdoors in crypto messengers

> Now we only need a desktop client that supports the same features... And iOS

For iOS ChatSecure was just released with OMEMO support https://chatsecure.org/blog/chatsecure-v4-released/

Regarding desktop clients, I can recommand Gajim which also has a OMEMO plugin.

BjoernSchiessle•

on June 15, 2016

•on: Freedom for whom?

This blog contains some thoughts about business models and how to build a diverse & healthy community around Free Software initiatives.

BjoernSchiessle•

on April 11, 2016

•on: Pwncloud – Bad crypto in the Owncloud encryption m...

There are some community activities to implement client-side encryption. But as far as I know there doesn't exists any running code at the moment. So don't expect to much in the next few months.

In general I want to note that client side encryption is great. I also like and use it in many areas. But you also have to keep in mind that it will make most of the web interface and it features useless. Personally I run my ownCloud in my basement. The connection to the server is secured by https and the hard disc is encrypted with LUKS. In this case it doesn't make sense to me to add additionally server-side or client-side encryption.

The first step is always to check your threat model, your setup and your requirements to see if you really need server-/client-side encryption.

BjoernSchiessle•

on April 11, 2016

•on: Pwncloud – Bad crypto in the Owncloud encryption m...

As always it is not black and white. It depends on your threat model. If you just want to make sure that Google can't read your content (which was the original intention of ownClouds server-side encryption) then everything is fine. Also with older versions. But if you fear that Google might not only read your data but manipulate it then I would suggest to upgrade to ownCloud >= 9.0. But keep in mind that the files only get encrypted the new way the first time you touch them. ownCloud will not migrate all your existing files to the new encryption which includes the signature.

BjoernSchiessle•

on Feb 17, 2016

•on: Show HN: Linenoise NG – GNU Readline Replacement, ...

> I don't know how, but presumably because there is now more GPL code out there than if it had been an open source license. THAT'S the assumption and the leap that I do not believe, based on the data at hand.

One example which disprove you believes and whatever data you refer to is the Objective-C compiler. NeXT wouldn't have released it as Open Source if gcc wouldn't be GPL licensed. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C

Further it sounds like you want to argue that the GPL is not a Open Source license. This is also wrong by all reliable sources, e.g. the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses

epistasis•

on Feb 17, 2016

It seems that the key part of your source is:

>In order to circumvent the terms of the GPL, NeXT had originally intended to ship the Objective-C frontend separately, allowing the user to link it with GCC to produce the compiler executable. After being initially accepted by Richard M. Stallman, this plan was rejected after Stallman consulted with GNU's lawyers and NeXT agreed to make Objective-C part of GCC.[7]

Given that both NeXT and Stallman changed their minds on this issue, I'm not sure that you can argue that Objective-C would not have eventually been open sourced. Especially given Clang.

I'm not sure why you perceive that I think that GPL is not Open Source. Quite the contrary. I'm basically arguing that "Free" software misses the point of open source software. Which is in counter to these very well known opinions:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h...

And primarily I object to Stallman's hijacking of the term "free" where the only thing I see is control.