• @Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The investigation did not spotlight the similarly-named Matrix open source communication protocol.

    Feel like there are going to be a lot of confused Lemmy users who won’t read more than the title.

    • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      Well goodness. I read the article, fortunately, but it’s good to see other people pointing out here.

      My initial thought was that this was the matrix we obviously care about. I didn’t look at the details to see if these people are truly nefarious and do belong in jail, which I’m okay with, but it was definitely troubling to imagine that something I thought secure wasn’t secure. 😬

  • @Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    534 months ago

    The investigation did not spotlight the similarly-named Matrix open source communication protocol.

    huh

    • @acockworkorange@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      84 months ago

      I like the full quote better:

      Dutch police said the Matrix app was targeted along with similar encrypted services known by the names Mactrix, Totalsex, X-quantum and Q-Safe. The investigation did not spotlight the similarly-named Matrix open source communication protocol.

      Absolute dupe-magnets.

  • @will_a113@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    464 months ago

    I wonder if this matrix app was just a honeypot that was named to trick people into thinking they were using the “real” matrix.

  • @Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    284 months ago

    I’m surprised so many criminals are picking these niche services that haven’t had their security verified by trustworthy third parties. That’s just asking for trouble.

    • @SatyrSack@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      134 months ago

      The allure of the potential for “security through obscurity” is great if you don’t know better.

  • Chemical Wonka
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 months ago

    My undergraduate professor once worked for one of the largest banks in Germany, and she told me clearly that all encryption algorithms exported by the US have a way of being broken. A backdoor in the algorithm? Perhaps

    • @finderscult@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      Not really. Certainly some “encryption” algorithms or really implementations have backdoors, but RSA for example doesn’t. Encryption is only worthwhile if it’s mathematically sound, and you can’t backdoor mathematics without some random undergrad working on their maths degree figuring out for fun.

    • @CAVOK@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      44 months ago

      Probably an implementation issue. Make a small error there, like storing parts of a key in memory or something like that and you’ve compromised security.

      • @FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        Encryption is really really hard, and avoiding some form of sidechannel attack is much much harder.

        Sure key exchange also isn’t trivial, but I would say that key exchange is significantly easier. Care to elaborate?

        • TXL
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Encryption is trivial. Getting a reliable keystream is not.

          It all depends on the framing 😁

    • @FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      RSA doesn’t scale, so if the message is large then RSA becomes unwieldy. So most encryption methods that make use of RSA actually encrypt the data with a symmetric algorithm, and then just encrypt the key for the symmetric data using the RSA key.

      But there is still way way way too many ways to implement crypto wrong, which can completely compromise the security of it.