• Pantherina@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uhm question, how is Tutanota E2EE? Other than making PGP setup easier. Afaik they just use a different protocol for client-server

    • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it is a shitty E2EE implementation in JS incompatible with the email standard OpenPGP.

      but I like that they wrote this post, even if it is for marketing purposes, because Tutanota is based on the EU and hopefully the EU Parliament will listen if enough people tells them.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They have a JavaScript version, it’s true. But they also have apps. Meaning you don’t have to rely on JavaScript security. If you want to lock it down.

        Encrypted email, should never be considered end to end encrypted. This includes protonmail which does implement PGP. Email is a clear text protocol. Encrypted email providers provide encryption at rest for the email.

        The issue with protonmail, and PGP in general, is the metadata is unencrypted, to from subject. Metadata gets people killed. Metadata is valuable data.

        So you have to choose for your data at rest do you want everything encrypted, then you go with Tutanota, if you only want the body of the email encrypted then proton mail/ PGP.

        Since most email is clear text anyway, and if you want end to end encrypted you should use signal or simplex, I think full encryption at rest is the better option here.

        All of that’s to say it’s not a shitty implementation, it’s an implementation with different trade-offs than what you value

        • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          their clients use the same JS implementation, they are the web version wrapped in electron.

          The major problem with these JS implementations (including Proton and any other program that uses JS for encryption) is that it would be trivial for them to grab your private key from your browser and send it to their servers. And yes, we have the code. But it’s virtually impossible to verify that the code they are sending to your browser each time is exactly the same one that they publish on github, after JS minimizers and all that.

          A third party that found a vulnerability in a browser could also inject their own JS and steal your private keys.

          You’re obviously right about everything else and email’s inherent insecure nature.

          I still find it useful because it’s the only online communication channel that is widely adopted, that can be self-hosted without depending on third party servers or you can simply choose a provider you trust. I’d love to have that with XMPP or SimpleX or something like that, but currently we’re stuck with email.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The point of a fully embodied app, is you don’t have to pull the JavaScript from the website. It’s distributed via the app system. Fdroid in many cases

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t use PGP.

      Tutanota is end and encrypted between different users of tutanota. But any external email you send or receive is unencrypted. They do have an option to send an encrypted link to the other party, but that’s cumbersome.

      The big thing about this mail service, is the data is stored at rest encrypted with your key. So once it’s received clear text, it’s encrypted and stored on the disk only with your key. After that they can’t decrypt it.