Hey,
No, I'm not offline. I'm fully online and connected to my server as usual. I just think to synchronize offline history, which could be a lot of data and include confidential messages that were initially encrypted, an encrypted direct client-to-client channel would be cool, both for speed and security.
You are offline? What does this mean? in a local network, not connected to the internet?
That seems inflexible. Would work for the simplest use-case (completely new client wants the full history), but if realistically possible I'd like to be a bit more flexible. I'd also like to avoid that because it would mean that your whole history is now available online in one nice package secured with a single encryption key, so all the effort you put in beforehand with forward-secrecy etc. would be gone.
Simply upload to http server encrypted.
That's one of the reasons I don't want to go over the server but use a peer-to-peer connection instead :)XML Stream via Server is not a good way to transfer hundreds of megabytes.
Hah, I would have expected it the other way around. For the format I could use e.g. MAM, which would give me nice message archive queries and is supported by the clients I would want to target. The transport seems difficult though.
Is this about the transport method? Or the format?
Because interoperable format seems like a big task, transport seems easy.
It's not really about a "backup" in that sense. For a backup I would probably do what Andrew suggested and just create a password-protected zip file with my data and upload that somewhere. The use-case I am brainstorming is when you get a new client, but you can't get the history from the server because it either doesn't have complete archives or some stuff was OMEMO-encrypted. So you quickly scan a QR-code on some of your other clients and it transfers the local, plaintext messages over.I think defining the transport and where to store is useful short term, then every client can offer their own backup.
Regards
Philipp
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024, at 21:55, Andrew Nenakhov wrote:
We're not currently doing it but considering to do in the future. Very much likely we'll just do an upload of an encrypted archive via cloud storage. This way it can be interoperable with the likes of Dropbox / gdrive / whatever.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 00:51 Tim Henkes <syndace@web.de> wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been brainstorming a mechanism for offline history transfer (i.e.
one client fetches the offline message history from another client). For
that, an encrypted direct client-to-client XML channel would be neat.
1. Are direct client-to-client XML channels a thing?
I found XEP-0247 [1], which looks alright on first read-through but is
deferred since 2010. Does someone more familiar with the topic know why
the XEP was abandoned and whether it could realistically be revived or
if there is a better alternative now?
2. Are encrypted direct client-to-client channels a thing?
There is JET [2], but it seems to focus on key negotiation (which I
would do differently) and file transfers, which I don't need either. I
don't see how a bidirectional data channel/stream would be encrypted
using JET.
There's also a XEP called jingle-xtls [3] in the Inbox, but it's even
more abandoned than XEP-0247 and also seems to focus mostly on the key
negotiation, which again I would do differently.
Next to these questions I would be interested in the general sentiment
and ideas for workarounds (e.g. "p2p is cursed, just send encrypted
stanzas via the server as usual" or "just use a simple binary format and
don't bother with a fully fledged XML stream").
Thanks :D
Tim
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org