• Jarmer@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just tried it out with my proton account. Looks great! It’s very simple, but I also like that about it. And of course being private is wonderful.

    • cygnus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t see anything different… How did you access it?

      • illi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        From what I read it’s being released to users gradually I think?

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Today we’re announcing a new end-to-end encrypted, collaborative document editor that puts your privacy first. Docs in Proton Drive are built on the same privacy and security principles as all our services, starting with end-to-end encryption. Docs let you collaborate in real time, leave comments, add photos, and store your files securely. Best of all, it’s all private — even keystrokes and cursor movements are encrypted.

        Literally the second paragraph of the post (but I’m sure you haven’t read it, since you seem so busy replying to every comment here about how Proton is becoming Microsoft or something).

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          4 months ago

          So sending a company your private key and trusting their servers to do E2E encryption despite them being able to modify their code whenever they feel like it to capture your password without encryption and masked in obfuscated JavaScript is now considered security? Wow, people really are gullible.

          • experbia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I agree with your general sentiment here (that such an arrangement is not trustworthy enough for me to feel completely private) but your delivery of said sentiment is really fucking rude, dude.

            Even if it’s not secure enough for you or I to feel private, it likely exceeds the security necessary to satisfy most people’s threat models so they can not only feel private but objectively be more private than if they just used Google docs.

            incremental or opportunistic privacy improvements are better than none, a fact that has seemed to be lost in elitist privacy circles these days.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              4 months ago

              Incremental in what way? There is an illusion of privacy. If that makes people feel good then sure, you increase your illusion of privacy.

              • nieminen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 months ago

                Dude, you’ve made your point on virtually every comment on this thread. We get it, you don’t trust them. The world has given all of us every reason not to blindly trust this sort of thing. But I’ve done enough digging that I’M happy with the security, and the fact they’re not feeding my private content to the AI monster.

                Please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, don’t keep spamming EVERYONE with the same 3 points you’ve already made elsewhere.

          • brochard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m not sure what you’re talking about ? You’re not sending your private key to their server without first encrypting it first locally. Their servers are not doing the E2EE, your client is. The website front and apps are open source.

            Yes they could send you a compromised front if you use it via their website, that’s a compromise you accept, otherwhise you could only use their apps which are open source.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              4 months ago

              Tell me… when you visit a website that gets updated daily, if not hourly. If it served you a different version of JavaScript than what it served someone else… would you know?

              • brochard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I already answered that. Yes you can’t trust a website’s content, that’s why they offer apps. It’s your choice to trust the website which is as secure as they can make it, or you simply use the apps…

                • John Richard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  How does a WebView wrapped app offer much more security than a website? Why do they require a paid subscription to use the desktop apps?

                • John Richard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Last I checked the apps are mostly just wrappers around WebView, so either way you’re getting served different content randomly without ever knowing. AND, Proton specifically prevents the desktop apps from functioning on unpaid accounts. That would be like Gmail disabling IMAP for unpaid users.

              • sunzu@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Ain’t this a website issue? Or is somebody doing it better?

                No JavaScript?

  • Nima@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    ooooh I love this. Proton is just winning constantly these days.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      122
      ·
      4 months ago

      No they’re not. They can’t even finish a single solution, let alone actually make anything functional when you’re not using their proprietary servers. They’re becoming Microsoft.

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        They can’t finish a single solution

        Gee, it’s almost as if that’s the whole point of an ever-evolving SaaS platform.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          4 months ago

          A SaaS solution that claims to be private but won’t provide the backend code to prove it. You don’t find it at all suspicious that they claim releasing backend code would make it less secure? What kind of security product is not open for inspection? The same kind of “security” you get from Microsoft.

          • Gestrid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I imagine it probably is inspected, just not by the public. They probably do it themselves.

            And they may have contracts with certain companies specializing in this sort of security that also inspect it.

            And there’s also the cybersecurity companies that test it whether they’re contracted or not. At some companies, their entire job revolves around finding bugs (especially security bugs) in other companies’ software.

            Just because it’s not on GitHub doesn’t mean it’s not a good product that hasn’t been thoroughly tested.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Surely we’re not gullible enough to accept “we inspected ourselves and determined we are secure and you should use our services”?

              • Gestrid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                That’s where the second and third paragraphs come in. Because other companies likely test it themselves, too.

                They’ll typically report security bugs privately and then, after X amount of months, publicly announce the bug. Doing it this way will, ideally, force the other company to patch the bug prior to the announcement. If not, they’ll end up with a publicly known security bug that bad actors can now exploit. The announcement will also let the public (including companies) know to update their software.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Yes, and those other paragraphs are the same thing other proprietary companies do. Your opening paragraph is just absurd on the face of it because “inspected” does not mean “by themselves”.

                  The second paragraph is literally speculation about something that might happen.

                  The third paragraph is about bug bounties, which every major software company does and which does not involve code inspection.

                  You just smokescreened and talked around the fact that your opening statement “it probably is inspected” is entirely unverifiable and non-credible even if true. I guess since you started that sentence with “I imagine” then it is technically true. You did imagine that.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              You realize that Microsoft code is inspected as well, even more heavily and regulated… and yet they still end up with major breaches. Security evolves through open source collaboration and inspection by experts that aren’t being paid to say you’re doing a good job.

              • sunzu@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You are making a lot good points… But is there any other practical solution?

                Seems this is the best a normie on budget can get

                • lastweakness@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  They’re not actually good points at all… Proton’s open sourcing of the clients is for the purpose of trust in terms of security and privacy. The backend doesn’t matter because the point is that the data is encrypted before it ever gets to the backend. The goal with Proton’s open sourcing is not the ability to make it self-hostable. Sure, a lot of concerns are valid, but this isn’t like Microsoft or Google. Nearly all of Proton is verifiably and provably secure. Well, at least as long as you trust the web clients being served are the ones whose code is publicly available. But again… You can’t verify that with any SaaS. Such a risk is even present with self-hosting tbh. But that’s another discussion.

          • micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            You don’t find it at all suspicious that they claim releasing backend code would make it less secure? What kind of security product is not open for inspection?

            No, because Proton has 3rd party audits all the time and they share the results openly.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Microsoft has third party audits all the time and say they’re secure, and then you learn of new backdoors every 6 months. Audit companies are unreliable and paid to give good feedback while doing the least work possible.

          • deezbutts@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah because enterprises primarily use a ton of open source security tools…

            ಠ_ಠ

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Enterprises are using a plethora of open source tools at this point. They may still utilize closed source solutions, but they definitely have quite a bit of open source solutions tied in.

        • slooopy_potatoe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          38
          ·
          4 months ago

          Releasing unfinished products and expect users to just make do while they launch the next product can’t be the solution either.

          • micka190@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            44
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Then it’s a good thing all of their products are fully functional and working as advertised, I guess.

              • naught101@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Which bits are not functional? I’m using their email and calendar… they aren’t completely polished, but they’re very usable.

                • slooopy_potatoe@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Drive has no Linux client, Photos is extremely barebones and locks you basically in, as there is no export function.

                  Pass still has no proper SimpleLogin integration, no credit card support and UX wise is the browser extension pretty bad. Funny enough, years after launch you still can’t auto fill on Reddit.

                  The only thing I don’t like about Mail is that you still have to create reverse aliases through SimpleLogin. Better integration would be great.

                  Contacts still don’t sync to you local mobile contacts. Which means you either do it manually or you have to keep two sets updated.

                  Calendar is good too, I’ve heard it has no offline support though. Although I haven’t verified that.

                  Last thing I would like to see is notification support without Play Services.

                  Some of those things might be super unimportant to some, but for me it makes the use of their stuff unnecessary cumbersome. Especially if you consider that those are all Proton products and should work together well.

                  My by far biggest problem is their communication and general development speed though. Stuff like contact sync has been requested for 5(?) years now but there hasn’t been so much as a “we’re working on it”.

                  It feels to me they come out with new products all the time, like the document editor now, without addressing the little things that would make their ecosystem great.

                  Anyway, long ramble. But I appreciate that you asked for more details without insulting me.

                • The Liver@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Whatever, dude. They’re most probably not a native English speaker, and even if they are, a spelling error doesn’t make them an “idiot”. You’re being a complete dick.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      91
      ·
      4 months ago

      They act just like Microsoft. Lot’s of people think Microsoft is successful. If you think Microsoft is the champion of privacy though you might be in a cult.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          4 months ago

          Really? So Proton saying that they can’t open source the backend code to improve security isn’t something Microsoft would say as well? Proton sells statements, but they don’t back up those statements with proof.

          • nieminen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Exposing their backend code to the public would be inviting bad actors to find loopholes in the logic. Your excuse for how they’re not secure is in fact one of their security features. No code is perfect, and you give enough people enough time to peruse through your software they’ll find a flaw to exploit. So they only provide their code to 3rd party audit companies they trust.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ll tell you what. When proton ships a product that takes a screenshot of my desktop every 5 seconds and stores it in an unsecured DB any user on my computer can access, we’ll call them even.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’ll tell you what. If you can prove to me by pointing to the specific source code that would prevent Proton from capturing your private key password when you login or decrypt using their standard clients then I’ll join the Proton cult.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            prove to me by pointing to the specific source code that would prevent Proton from your private key password

            You want them to point to code (that’s not publicly available) that prevents Proton from capturing credentials?

            What a dumb hoop to tell someone to jump through. Do you expect someone to actually post a block of code? Would you even be able to read it?

              • Grippler@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Yes I can read it. You think I’m an f’ing idiot?

                I mean, you’re certainly not providing much proof that you have any measurable software skills that enables you to do the proper evaluation even if you received the code from proton. Why should anyone believe this unsubstantiated claim from you?

                Edit: for the record, I’m don’t give a shit and I’m just yanking your chain here.

                • John Richard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I’m a black belt in TypeScript, JavaScript, Go, Rust, C, C++, Python & can read and write assembly with my eyes closed, okay?😉

          • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            This simply isn’t really possible.

            Even if they published open-source code for their backend, it wouldn’t prove that it’s actually what their systems are running.

            And when you are storing your data on their servers, and decrypting it by sending over your password, there’s no way you can actually truly prevent them from accessing your data, if they were to modify how their systems function overall. (this is true for every company)

            Even if they were using zero-knowledge proofs to verify and prove to you the computation done on the server matched what would be expected from published open-source code, then either their very own systems (and by extension, their administrators), or a different company’s proprietary TPM module, would be the root of trust for those ZK proofs, and would still have the same underlying trust assumptions of at least 1 company having the ability to potentially steal your information.

            If you want to rail against Proton for this, you have to be against every single cloud-based instance of code that hosts encrypted data, by any company, for any user.

            Saying Proton acts just like Microsoft is a laughable comparison to make in order to justify claiming a lack of privacy or security on Proton’s part.

            Why? Is it because they’re both companies that offer online services? Guess what, loads of companies do that. But you know what Proton doesn’t do? Give away the contents of people’s files, like Microsoft states they do in their own transparency reports, that they conveniently stopped publishing in 2022. Microsoft handed over the content (not just IP, email, etc, but actual docs, communications, stored files, etc) of thousands of people’s accounts to law enforcement. Proton hasn’t given out content once.

            And this doesn’t even consider the fact that Proton’s business model is privacy. For Microsoft, their users will keep using their services regardless of their privacy, but for Proton, if it comes out that their services are no longer private, nobody will use them anymore, because nobody who got them for privacy would need them at that point.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Such source code isn’t possible with the general audience service they offer, even if being open source were a requirement for credibility in any way.

            You’re comparing them to a company with a long history of actively hostile behavior despite the fact that there’s never been a single hint of anything resembling hostile behavior from them, they operate from a country with meaningful privacy protections and only surrender data when compelled by their own courts (who only do so in circumstances that actually warrant it), and haven’t actually given up information that’s useful when required to because they don’t have it.

      • Muscar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’d almost believe you were paid to hate on proton, but you’d get fired for how fucking dumb your arguments are.

  • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only open source mentioned in the post is their encryption. Not the document editing software. OP please remove your change to the article title, it’s extremely misleading.

  • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Open source ? Does that mean I can host my own ? Would it be compatible with other self hosted instance ?

    EDIT: the only source code I found hasn’t been maintained for 3 years.