I don’t think this kind of app could be an alternative to instagram because of it only being P2P with only people you know.
The app is using webRTC which exposes IP addresses, so you wouldn’t want something like a global feed on this.
Immich sounds interesting. I’d like to make time to check it out.
P2P allows for a fairly unexplored infrastructure for content moderation. In this app, the feed of images would only be from people you connect to. For people to connect to you, you have to share a crypto random id.
As a webapp you can clear the site data by logging out. Basically, people cannot randomly connect to you and share things you don’t like.
I won’t be adding anything like a global feed. Only content that you shared or received.
This doesn’t remove the risk of people sending you things you don’t like so I’m all ears for an approach to that. I didn’t make much progress on the following. If there are any hard features you think would help, let me know. I’d like to make some time to create a “block contact” but it’ll take time and consideration to do it properly (so I don’t expect it soon). Things like logging out and being able to backup your profile might be enough, but not as user-friendly as it could be.
thanks! will delete.
thanks! i’ll make a note of that to add. it looks reletively simple to implement in JS, i’ll need to check more about browser compatability. tls 1.3 is already in use. i otherwise have wording throughout that users must trust who they connect to.
as for browser extensions, there are CSP headers set to prevent them from accessing personal details.
impossible to update the software
considering the app amounts to a bunch of statics. they wint update themselves if you dont want it to. the app works in many different forms because all form factors can have nuanced security details. its better for security that if people have the ability to selfhost, then they also have the option to choose the form-factor they use based on their preferences.
All nice ideas! I’ll take a note. I’d like to make time to make it so on each initial connection it generates new keys too. This should be what I think is forward-secrecy. (Let me know if I’m wrong.)
I don’t know the specifics of VPN and it’s implication with webrtc, I tried testing and sharing my observations here. I’m open to advice here.
You asked about native builds… Tbh I don’t know much about it. I did a short search-engine search and these seem to be well regarded. (Currently?) As a pwa I have a lot of flexibility in the apps form-factor. I was thinking about how easy it would be to make it into a browser extension. (It’s not about it being useful, but just providing that extra option.)
I think for my app to be regarded well in security I think it’s important for people to use their own instances. The “live app” as I call it is an experimental proof of concept. I wondering about the idea that the app is run on your own forks, but occasionally sync from upstream. As it stands my app is too garbage for anyone to want a copy, but that should eliminate those concerns.
It’s also an offline first pwa. Right now it fetches the latest version, but I don’t see why I can’t create a toggle on the UI to not fetch if there is cache… Again the app is unstable and experimental. I’m working on fixes and improvements as I see it to make a better app. It’s a while away from being able to advocate selfhosting to users. But in theory it could address your concerns?
Many attack vectors still indeed exist. With P2P web tech it seems that this allows for an interesting approach and could help reduce the attack-surface. The app is available for iOS, android and desktop. Let me know if you have more concerns.
My bad. I noticed the ego sometimes inflates which seems to stem for naive confidence.
I have observed pitfalls of other apps like mine. In particular one called crypto cat. I’m sure I can’t ever be exhaustive enough in learning from other examples.
Reducing metadata is indeed the goal of security and I think I have it reduced to a level where I can exchange webrtc connection data over QR codes or plain text. The IP is exposed at this point but I think this can be further scrubbed with a VPN. Perhaps this is interesting for you. It the minimum example of establishing a webrtc connection with plain text. Not user friendly, but it work without a peer-broker service. In the app I’d like to frame this around exchanging data over QR code.
As for the bitcoin wallet thing, I would think so if it’s well tested and ironed out well. As long as I can facilitate the downloading of the data (for backup) and the data syncing between devices then it would be doing that without registering to any backend. There are countless examples of bitcoin exchanges collapsing and taking people’s assets. The same could be said with the quality of security provided by chat app providers.
alas, we circle back around to “javascript is inherently insecure”.
especially the ones that run inside web browsers like this one does
i dont think this is a valid assersion. it seems wrapped in vagueness about the attack vector. as a webapp it has to be sandboxed in a browser. any vulnerabilities will be related to that. i often hear about browsers having backdoors (which is possible), but theyd be saying that in a world where their operating system is more likely the attack surface. id like to discuss that as a webapp, (and a suitable security stack), this app is secure. take for example any existing secure app (signal/simplex/whatsapp?). they can have all the required bells and whistles for secure/private functionality. but all that encryption can be undermined if a typical low-end phone+os is more than capable of snooping your screen. the same as would apply for my app running in a browser. my arguament is if you dont trust google, you shouldnt use chrome. with a lot of those native offering, your choice is limited to something like apple or android.
this app is also contains builds for iOS, Android and desktop. i dont promote them because im simply not convinced that these native builds are better than what web-technology can provide. a recurring concern is the reliablity of the statics served… it seems thats easy to eliminate if i make it open source and selfhostable. it puts me at a competative disadvantage, but consequently it is unparalelled in the devices it can run on.
APT are a valid concern as any. if this is something youre worried about, i think using this app with a trusted VPN in combination to using disposable profiles, it should be easy to achieve. the mitigation for APT seems simple if that is a concern, but let me know if im overlooking something. webrtc can leak ip addresses and after investigating this, i think you can achieve a reasonable degree of “hiding your personal IP address” based on the information here.
compared with dedicated solutions
the purpose of this project is to create a secure chat app. i want this app to be one of those ‘dedicated solutions’. as it stands, its created by a baboon sat in front of chatgpt. but the goal is indeed to create something with unparalelled security. people always seems to avert the idea of this app being secure on the grounds that its JS, but i havent come across any credible way to undermine its security without having compromised the stack above the app (browser/os/peer/network) if any of those are a concern, the app is presented in various distributions from website to native builds.
i hope im not coming across as stubborn here. i really think this app represents a different paradigm in security that nobody is exploring. i dont think ive noticed any lack of interest in decentralized or p2p technology, but nobody seems to be working on this kind of app as a webapp. i find that its not only possible, but i think its relatively trivial to get basic functionality together. i understand that the user-experience isnt great at the moment and will limit the people who want to use it, but on the security grounds alone, i think i could be a real-contender for secure chat.
You conern is well placed. This is why the project has to be open source and I encourage selfhosters.
If this is your concern, I think the offering from other apps is much more shady. While many projects are open source, when provided from an app store you have much less ability to verify the binaries involved match the available source code. It’s at this point backdoors can be introduced. (It may be noteworthy that my app serves code unminified for transparency)
As it stands for me app. It’s unstable and so I suggest always using the latest version because I will be adding fixes. It is an offline-first pwa. It’s possible to make it so it doesn’t fetch statics if it already has a cached vopy. At this early stage it doesn’t make sense to use this feature because the project is unstable and recieving various fixes and improvements throughout. (There is no audited version of the app.)
Simplex is good. Mine isn’t ready to replace any app or service.
thanks for your thoughts. im sure others would have similar concerns.
The attacker takes over the server and replaces the JS with a backdoored version
this is a core concern why the app is open source and selfhostable. details are provided in the readme to create a selfhosted fork that runs on github pages. there are several ways around this concern described here.
You are going in the wrong direction
thats unfortunate if you still think so, but id like to hear any other concerns if you have any.
thanks for taking a look.
there is a tonne of garbage code throughout as i have iterated and improved. its terrible practice for collabboration, but at the moment im just trying things out. in the case of the cryptography module, it was previsously part of the main chat app repo before being refactored into a federated module. its commented it out because i was testing out by toggling the functionality. of course it would be cleaner to remove, but i havent quite finished refactoring the crytography module. it needs things like unit testing. as a sideproject im fairly liberal with my coding practices to achieve what i want to test and things that read like LLM promps, likly are. various LLMs have been used to create the app as you see it. that isnt to say i didnt check and test the code being introduced.
the module federated version of the cryptography module that will replace the crypto functions done in the app can be found here
i started work on a p2p framework similarly to the crypto module (as seen here), i would make it into a federated module. it would make sense to get a review and security audit for that first.
i have asked in the cryptography communities to get feedback about the random generation and i think this implementation works. that isnt to dismiss your concerns, but its important to note the purpose of this is to be unpredictable random when connecting to peerjs-server. such a randomization is possible out of the box with a typical browser. these functions are already audited to be secure (otherwise youre on the wrong browser/os for this app). this is then combined with what can be considered as user-generated entropy (which is arguably redundent). this is my answer to what you elude to about a CLI tool to generate a value… in the app there is something you might see called “crypto signature”. this is a htm5 canvas you can draw on. this input gets truned into base64 string and passed through a sha256 hashing function. this value is reasonably unpredictable when combined to the browser-provided random value. (if you try to do your own signature again, its unlikly it would be identical pixel-for-pixel).
i hope that answers some concerns. let me know if something is still unclear or i didnt answer clearly enough.
Thanks! As a webapp I generally have no choice but advise that users select a device/os/browser combo they trust.
It’s important to note “disabling webRTC” is not a goal here. My app critically relies on it.
The webapp form factor is important for accesability. While things likes Qubes are secure by design, that isn’t something I can suggest to potential users. VPN however is a lot more commonly used in today’s digital scene, so I think that’s a step that easier to advocate to users.
I’m sure various factors affect any projects maturity.
I work on the project because I have a curiosity and the ability to try. Compared to other project, a webapp is pretty easy to get started on as a developer.
Thanks. I’ve come across tox before. It’s a good implementation. The aim of my project is not to compete, but more to demonstrate a different approach to P2P technology.
A key detail in mine is that it’s made to work in a typical web browser. While things like chat functionality can be demonstrated in our app. The app is capable to do things like shared xr spaces and shared filesystems… Unfortunately those features are still in need of refinement before they become appealing to users, but it works for a proof-of-concept.
perhaps.
it started of very vanillajs, but i found that users didnt like the appearance. so i added a faily basic implementation of material ui.
existing frameworks were not compatible with the look, feel and funtionality i was after. i still havent achieved it, but im happy with the progress.
if “trust” in the static files from a url is a concern, (which is very reasonable), you can easily host your own instance.
i think it fits squarely as a “P2P app”. over a hotspot, you can practically send messages offline. im not sure what other qualifiers are needed.
i dont think its ready to be compared to other tools yet. but i would be aiming to make it comparable to something like signal… but it’ll take a while to get there.
Sorry. It’s quite buggy.
What you’re describing might be related to there being 2 tabs of the app running. This results in both reacting to the new-connection-event, but ultimately resulting in a data conflict.
Plugins shouldn’t be an issue. For stronger security, i have CSP headers to try to prevent browser plugins reading data.
If nothing works then the egg is squarely on my face and my buggy app is too buggy.
My app is different because the auth is handled between peers. So it could only every be people you shared your ID with. Security is important for me on this project. Its more important than the app being popular. https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberSecurityAdvice/comments/1ev5kqn/is_this_a_secure_messaging_app/
People should not connect to strangers on this app because of the potential risks of IP exposure… But between people you trust or between your own devices, it should work as expected for testing.
As for allowing links with expiration, you basically have that already with what looks like the login/logout functionality. There is no actual registration, it’s just a UI for creating and deleting crypto random ID profiles.
Lemmy and the fediverse is a good idea. The federation makes it so I can see Lemmy posts on mastodon. Etc… id like to draw a parallel in my app with the chat-view and the inteagram-view