This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 24, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 385
Add a warning that Jami is partially centralized #1727
Labels
📝 correction
Correction of content on the website
Comments
jonaharagon
changed the title
🌐 Website Issue | Add a warning that Jami is partially centralized
Add a warning that Jami is partially centralized
Feb 20, 2020
jonaharagon
added
📝 correction
Correction of content on the website
and removed
🌐 website issue
*Technical* issues with the website.
labels
Feb 20, 2020
I think small note is would be a proper solution to this. this issue is one of the grey areas which are always difficult to define. Do you wnna make a quick PR for this @lrq3000 ? |
@blacklight447-ptio yes I'll do it :-) |
lrq3000
added a commit
to lrq3000/privacytools.io
that referenced
this issue
Mar 2, 2020
Signed-off-by: Stephen L. <[email protected]>
3 tasks
lrq3000
added a commit
to lrq3000/privacytools.io
that referenced
this issue
Mar 2, 2020
Signed-off-by: Stephen L. <[email protected]>
lrq3000
added a commit
to lrq3000/privacytools.io
that referenced
this issue
Mar 2, 2020
Signed-off-by: Stephen L. <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Description
Although it is described as a P2P client, Jami uses 5 different central servers to provide some functionalities, as described here and here. Hence, without self-hosting, these servers are points of failure where meta-data can leak (see also #1357).
This by the way goes counter to the cited advantage of P2P clients: "There are no servers that could potentially intercept and decrypt your transmissions, unlike centralized and federated models."
I suggest a warning is added about the possibility to disable/self-host these servers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: