nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq7yy36sc76fk27p7fq0hztqqq4kpcz9d33l7x4exzadqulcat7wcq9vqtg4 (nprofile…qtg4)
I'm talking about the topic of your link:
> almost all
instant messaging protocols have embraced the ratchet construct, granting perfect
forward secrecy and post-compromise security.
> And there are the stragglers
who insist on not using any form of perfect forward secrecy, such as Session or
Delta Chat. Of those, we will talk no more.
> And so begs the question: how well are
protected our metadata by the various instant messaging infrastructures?
My point is that artificially limiting yourself to pfs-enabled messengers isn't interesting in the context of metadata leakage. In fact, dc+chatmail exactly falls in the caveat you point out about long-term identities. I would love to see an analysis of dc+chatmail (and also #xmpp messengers) in this context, so I'm frustrated to see it so easily dismissed :)
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqzgymqfyt0t0wm3ws2qvcp9vxtau4pzlftmr8h6qdjg6608wpjs2skjg4yp (nprofile…g4yp)
rakoo
npub1g7…sshx8
2025-05-20 16:16:11 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…ulq9
Author Public Key
npub1g7qamw0ghck3yxk2uw7792r7g0793c8xnt7lckdpfh236htsv34sqsshx8Seen on
wss://relay.mostr.pubPublished at
2025-05-20 16:16:11 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "1a5dc051c15b53777830ffeeb86c38c7be396aac1fb0f7f1078b584196df7f15",
"pubkey": "4781ddb9e8be2d121acae3bde2a87e43fc58e0e69afdfc59a14dd51d5d70646b",
"created_at": 1747757771,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"f1091d431ed26caf07c903ee258000ad838115b18ffc6ae4c2eb41cfe3abf3b0",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"1209b0248b7adeedc5d050198095865f79508be95ec67be80d9235a79dc19415",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"32fec42fd89b32d52ae58d708fa8be73b653e34b690a04ca7c6ff76c61a088f1",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"d08c1761175e953f02b239f92d1279bb40915a9e50f998448a5c2e37b3374ba4",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"4f17a79b91d226997c2bb136ff03e9adf38fbb5fec026b7a53ccabb2a0b92394",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"t",
"xmpp"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://blah.rako.space/objects/fb025935-3d12-4b7a-9bff-6fd96b369cdd",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpq7yy36sc76fk27p7fq0hztqqq4kpcz9d33l7x4exzadqulcat7wcq9vqtg4 \n\nI'm talking about the topic of your link:\n\n\u003e almost all\ninstant messaging protocols have embraced the ratchet construct, granting perfect\nforward secrecy and post-compromise security.\n\n\u003e And there are the stragglers\nwho insist on not using any form of perfect forward secrecy, such as Session or\nDelta Chat. Of those, we will talk no more.\n\n\u003e And so begs the question: how well are\nprotected our metadata by the various instant messaging infrastructures?\n\nMy point is that artificially limiting yourself to pfs-enabled messengers isn't interesting in the context of metadata leakage. In fact, dc+chatmail exactly falls in the caveat you point out about long-term identities. I would love to see an analysis of dc+chatmail (and also #xmpp messengers) in this context, so I'm frustrated to see it so easily dismissed :)\nnostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqzgymqfyt0t0wm3ws2qvcp9vxtau4pzlftmr8h6qdjg6608wpjs2skjg4yp",
"sig": "c1c42aed0c9d1ece14748aeb735de33fbea09bff581cc234c7b17dcaac8889dfd949c810a6e53c06ee87219200a083c0b76befa75771e01654f4096fe846d913"
}