76
Fastmail vs Proton Mail
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
76 points (95.2% liked)
Privacy
32159 readers
409 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
How is this relevant? I don't know and I don't care why they picked this technical solution.
It is, and you have been proven wrong. Either that, or you completely misuse or worse misunderstand what vendor lock is.
It's not if. You can.
Yes, you explained interoperability that has nothing to do with vendor lock. They are two. different. things.
False. Again. Interoperability it's a property that has to do with using the application. Interoperable applications potentially can totally vendor lock. Lemmy interoperates with Mastodon, but vendor locks you because you can not export everything and port all your content away. You definition is wrong. Just admit you misused the term and move on, there is no need to double down.
They use TLS. TLS is useful for transport security. Proton uses TLS. TLS doesn't have anything to do with e2ee in the context of emails because TLS is always terminated by the server. Therefore it is by definition not an e2ee protocol in this context. It is in the context of web, because there the two "ends" are your browser and the web server. It's not in the context of messaging where the other "end" is another client.
This has nothing to do with perfection, you are simply misunderstanding fundamentally what e2ee is in this context.
And in fact Proton doesn't do that.
I am not ashamed because I understand TLS, and I understand that it's useless in the context of email e2ee. You simply don't understand the topic but feel brave enough to evangelize on the internet about something you don't fully understand.
JFC. Proton uses TLS for transit connections. E2EE means that the server does not have access to the data. If the server has the key, in whatever form, and can perform a decryption, it's not e2ee. The only way to have e2ee for these protocols is that the client(s) and only the clients do the encryption/decryption operations. This is exactly what Proton clients do. They use DAV protocols but they extend them with implementing encryption on the client side. Therefore, naturally, by design, they are not compatible with servers which -instead- expect data unencrypted to serve it, unencrypted (only via TLS, which again, it's a transport protocol, has nothing to do with application data) to other clients.
Ironically, when saying what "decent companies" do, you have described what Proton does: they use your client key to encrypt data on client side. Then they transfer this data via a secure channel (TLS). The server has no keys and sees only encrypted data, and serves such data to other clients (Proton web, android etc.) that do the decryption/encryption operation back. Underlying it's still CalDAV/WebDAV.
I don't need to buy propaganda, I am a security professional and do this stuff for a living. I also understand what vendor lock is because all the companies I ever worked with had forms of vendor lock, and I am aware of Proton features instead.
Maybe you should really stop, reflect and evaluate if you really have the competence to make certain claims on the internet. I understand nobody is there keeping score and there are no consequences, but you are honestly embarassing yourself and spreading false information due to the clear lack of understanding about concepts such as e2ee, transport security, vendor locking, etc.
Your just focusing on strict technical definitions and completely ignoring the context of things. I described before how TLS is useful in the context of some SMTP e2e encrypted solution.
Yet they don't provide the information in standard protocols...
I never questioned that. With SMTP you can do true e2ee using PGP and friends, with CalDAV/WebDAV you'll need to have some kind of middle man doing the encryption and decryption - it's a fair trade off for a specific problem. The original question here wasn't about CalDAV/WebDAV but about SMTP where you can have true e2ee. Your previous comment of "SMTP requires server to access the data" is simply wrong.
Do you have any proof that they use CalDAV/CardDAV? Most likely they don't. In the same way they don't do IMAP/SMTP.
Get over yourself and your purist approaches, when a company provides a service that is standardized in a specific set of protocols and they decide to go ahead and implement their own stuff it is, at least, a subtle, form of vendor lock-in. End of story.
Yes, mentioning things that have not to do with e2ee. Anything that is encrypted with TLS is not e2ee in the context of emails. You talked about metadata, but the server has access to those because it terminates the connection, therefore, they are not e2ee. It's a protection against leakage between you and the server (and between server and other server, and between server and the destination of your email), not between you and the destination, hence, irrelevant in the context of e2ee. Metadata such as destination can obviously never be e2ee, otherwise the server wouldn't know where to send the email, and since it needs access to it, it's not e2ee, whether you use TLS or not. TLS in this context doesn't contribute at all to end to end encryption. Your definition is wrong, e2ee is a technical definition, is not an abstract thing: e2ee means that only the two ends of a conversation have access to the data encrypted. TLS is by definition between you and your mail server, hence it doesn't provide any benefit in the context of e2ee. It is useful, but for other reasons that have nothing to do with e2ee.
Exactly, and this is what Proton does. You simply don't accept that Proton decided to write another client that is tightly coupled with their mail service, which is absolutely nothing malicious or vendor-locky, compared to using an already made client. Proton is simply PGP + SMTP.
Yes, and this middle-man is proton client, which sits on the client's side. I am glad you understood how the only way to have e2ee with *DAV automatically technically impedes you to use "whatever server". If anybody else but the client does the encryption/decryption, you lost the end-to-end part. I am not saying e2ee in this context is absolutely necessary, you might not care and value more the possibility to plug other *DAV servers, good. Proton is not for you in that case.
Yes, you can using a PGP client, like OpenPGP of Proton webmail, or Proton bridge. You need stuff on top of SMTP.
Nope, you are simply misinterpreting it. In SMTP the server requires access to the data because it's the one delivering it. PGP is built so that the data it's a ciphertext and not plaintext, so that the server can't see the actual content of the mail, but it needs to have the data and ship it, in contrast for example to a p2p protocol. PGP is however on top of SMTP and requires a client doing it for you. OpenPGP or Proton do exactly this. There is no way to support SMTP "natively" and offer e2ee. You would like Proton not to do e2ee and leave the responsibility of the client to do the PGP part, with the freedom of picking whatever client you want? Well, that's exactly the opposite of their business model, since what they aimed is to make PGP de-facto transparent to the users so that it's available even to people who are not advanced users.
https://github.com/search?q=org%3AProtonMail+CalDAV&type=code you can dig yourself into the code if you are curious to understand.
I sent you already a GIthub search of their clients for SMTP, look for yourself in the code. Do you think that makes any sense at all for them to reinvent the wheel and come up with ad-hoc protocols when all they need is a client? You can also have a look at the job offers they post: https://boards.eu.greenhouse.io/proton/jobs/4294852101 You can see SMTP mentioned and experience with Postfix in production. It's very likely that they are running that in the background.
No it's not. Vendor lock means:
Proton uses open standards, and just builds clients that wrap them. This means, emails are in a format that can easily be imported elsewhere, same for Calendar and Contacts. You are now watering down the definition of vendor lock to try to make your claim less wrong, but it is wrong. I repeat, and you are welcome to prove me wrong:
This means that I can change vendor easily without significant cost, hence I am not locked-in.
What you actually mean is that while using Proton you can't interoperate easily with other tools, and this is a by-design compromise to have e2ee done in the way they wanted to make it, which is available to mainstream population. You disagree with their approach? Absolutely legitimate, you prefer to use OpenPGP, handle keys and everything yourself? Then for sure, Proton is not worth for you as you can choose the tools you want if that's important for you. But there is no vendor-lock, they simply bundled together the email client with the PGP client, so that you don't have the full flexibility of separating the two.
You disagree with this definition of vendor lock? Awesome, give me your definition and link some source that use that definition. Because if you keep moving the goalpost and redefine what vendor lock means, there is no point to discuss.