Authorized Fetch (also referred to as Secure Mode in Mastodon) was recently circumvented by a stupidly easy solution: just sign your fetch requests with some other domain name.

  • rglullis@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Repeat after me: anything I write on the internet should be treated as public information. If I want to keep any conversation private, I will not post it in a public website.

    • heavy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you, however there are issues with not just privacy but also authenticity. I should be able to post as me, even in public, and have a way to prove it. Nobody else should be posting information as me, if that makes sense.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        For that, we should start bringing our own private keys to the server, instead of trusting the server to control everything.

        And if we start doing that, pretty soon we will end up asking ourselves why do we need the server in the first place, and we will evolve to something like what nostr is doing.

        I’m all for it.

        • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          …evolve to something like what nostr is doing.

          Giving places for cryptobros to wank without being pointed at and laughed at by their betters?

                • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  When I see nostr users that number more than, say, six who aren’t also cryptobros, I’ll drop the nostr disrespect. Until then … 🤷‍♂️

                  • rglullis@communick.news
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You are doing nothing but a strawman. Lemmy is developed by shit-for-brains tankies, yet there is no denying that their work has brought progress to the distributed web.

                    Same thing for nostr. Whether you like it or not, nostr “cryptobros” have shown a bunch of things that need improvement on the Fediverse and they are backing their words with actions and working code. You on the other hand have nothing but smug, pretentious bullshit to throw around.

      • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, but that’s already solved on the fediverse by using HTTP Signatures and isn’t related to Authorized Fetch.

        • heavy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I meant to say generally, for folks that might read this comment and think problems surrounding the platform and security are solved.

      • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Clear sign every post using a third-party application. Make your public keys known far and wide. Authenticity solved.

    • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. Bobthenazi could just go to an aligned server and make an account Bobthenotzi and boom – perfectly able to follow whoever he wants.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One more reason to argue that we should drop the idea of “aligned” servers and that we are moving to a future where it is better to charge (small) amounts from everyone instead of depending on (large) donations from a few.

        • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ideally, a distributed fediverse wouldn’t need much in terms of donations because it’s a bunch of small instances instead of a few huge ones.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not the point. The point that instances that are open for everyone will be open for bad actors as well.

            If the mere act of signing up to an instance requires a small payment, you are automatically preventing the absolute majority of spammers, “spray and pray” scammers and channer trolls.

    • spaduf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To add a bit of important nuance to this idea (particularly how this argument comes up with regards to threads). This does not apply to legal rights over your content. That is to say, of course you should treat any information you put out there as out of your control with regards to access but if somebody tries to claim legal rights over your content they are probably breaking the law.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. Publicly available does not mean in public domain. But the issue here is not of copyright, but merely of gated access.

        • spaduf@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Totally. I’m just trying to bring it up whenever I see folks having this discussion because some people don’t seem to make the distinction. Worries me that some are so willing to cede that big social will illegally hoover up our data and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    • froggers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      anything I write on the internet should be treated as my private information. If I want to keep any conversation private, I will still post it in a public website.

      EDIT: I’m so sorry that my stupid comment offended some people. Always forget how special some people can be on this website. Once again I’m sorry for my lack of better judgement.

        • stoy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He thought he was funny, he repeated what the above poster said to repeat.

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

        I don’t think your comment was offensive per se. It was just ridiculously naive. If we are trying to build practical tools, they have to fit how things work in the real world, not how they work in anybody’s dreams. If you want to have private conversations on a public website, use encryption.