W dniu 07.07.2014 16:55, rysiek pisze: > Dnia poniedziałek, 7 lipca 2014 16:06:47 Dāvis Mosāns pisze: >> I don't agree, I think XMPP could be good solution, while yes attack >> surface is quite large but it will be in any case, because even if you >> create the very minimalist chat protocol possible (let's say basically use >> asymmetric cryptography for messages which are plaintext without any >> features) you still can have bugs in cryptography library, network stack, >> OS/kernel. This part will be same no matter what messaging protocol you >> use. > > Exactly. And that's an argument for NOT minimizing the attack surface beyond > these problems... how exactly? > > I mean, your argument is basically: "don't wash your hands, as there might be > salmonella in the eggs anyway". Dafuq? >
I'm going to defend XMPP too, but on the grounds that it's an already established and widely used protocol, the overhead is minimal looking from a modern point of view (even when not using the potentially privacy-risky elements) and it was designed to be extendable. These are imo good arguments to use xmpp instead of creating something new (again :-P ). -- Łukasz "Cyber Killer" Korpalski mail: [email protected] xmpp: [email protected] site: http://website.cybkil.cu.cc gpgkey: 0x72511999 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net //When replying to my e-mail, kindly please //write your message below the quoted text.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
