Hi, On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:07, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kucka...@ping.de> wrote:
> Simon Tennant: >> IMHO, e2e security would probably make more sense as a XEP and working >> group that has the time to zoom into all the implementation details. > > Can that be solved by an XEP ? > > What about this IETF draft? (I still have to read it) > > End-to-End Object Encryption and Signatures for the Extensible Messaging > and Presence Protocol (XMPP) > draft-miller-xmpp-e2e-06 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-miller-xmpp-e2e/ > > There exist people who mention XMPP as belonging to "faulty > technologies" for which they want to create alternatives: > http://youbroketheinternet.org/ > > And I try to find out what can be done to improve XMPP regarding > security and privacy. > Well you can “always” run XMPP on top of TOR if you like that, if it is the S2S routing that bothers you. :-) > Cheers, > Andreas > >> On 18 November 2013 10:30, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kucka...@ping.de >> <mailto:a.kucka...@ping.de>> wrote: >> >> Peter Saint-Andre some time ago wrote: >>> On 7/16/13 4:27 AM, Carlo v. Loesch wrote: >>>> Since XMPP isn't suitable for keeping meta-data private I would >>>> presume that e2e privacy is out of scope for this mailing list, >>>> really. >>> >>> True. >> >> Where would the topic e2e privacy for XMPP be "in scope" ? >> >> Cheers, >> Andreas /Steffen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
