-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 294
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New DMs are no longer encrypted (?) #2275
Comments
I dont think this is a flaw as E2EE cannot be disabled once its enabled. Meaning it should be off by default, correct? |
E2EE is not as strict as you think, clients can still simply decide to send unencrypted events (like reactions for instance) even if E2EE was enabled in a room That said, this would still be a regression compared to previous behavior and overall would reduce security and privacy for end-users. |
Hey 👋, Voxel here. My plattform and versions:
|
Just by coincidence stumbled upon #2004 which seems to be related. I realised that recently too, that new 1:1 rooms are not encrypted by default. But this seems to make sense somehow, since going e2e is possible, but going back not that easy. I would wish to have a clear indication in the room list that shows if a room is encrypted or not. If encryption is desired, it can be quickly turned on. |
Describe the bug
It seems that, under some circumstances, new DMs opened with users are no longer created with End-To-End-Encryption by default.
The exact requirements are unknown currently, but I've noticed that some users that DM'd me from the Cinny rooms had encryption disabled and
@voxel:nope.chat
has personally observed their new DMs no longer being encrypted since recentlyReproduction
Expected behavior
Cinny should enable End-To-End-Encryption when possible for new Direct Messages.
Platform and versions
1. OS: Linux Kernel 6.1 on Void Linux 2. LibreWolf 136.0-2, Flatpak 3. Cinny Version: ~4.4.0+ 4. Matrix homeserver: thomcat.rocks, nope.chat
Additional context
I have not yet done a
git bisect
to trace back when the issue started occurring, but I have this feeling it's gonna be around the same time the Vodozemac migration took place, i.e the last few versions.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: