Compare commits
No commits in common. "sctpub" and "shitlist" have entirely different histories.
2 changed files with 18 additions and 170 deletions
170
sctpub.md
170
sctpub.md
|
@ -1,170 +0,0 @@
|
||||||
# SCTPub
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Hi! So this is me trying to explain my plans with SCTPub (ActivityPub over SCTP).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
And remember: this is *my* idea, and I don't expect ppl will agree with it, and that's okay! I don't like TLS, doesn't mean I
|
|
||||||
refuse to use it.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
First, I'll talk about the choice of SCTP, and the choice of authentication and authorization mechanisms (which are actually
|
|
||||||
tightly coupled).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Why SCTP?
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
SCTP is a little-known protocol, so the idea was to use it to make it more popular and to experiment with it.
|
|
||||||
SCTP is in theory capable of seamless proxying such that you can talk to the proxy at the same time as you talk to the target,
|
|
||||||
but nothing seems to use this feature. It would still be target-controlled and signed, but the proxy would have some control
|
|
||||||
over caching. For sensitive requests, they would go straight through to the server, without the proxy being able to read it.
|
|
||||||
This puts the proxy in a position of a semi-trusted middleware. Technically all routers on the internet need to be semi-trusted
|
|
||||||
middleware, as any of those routers can track you and target you (e.g. with ads) based on that - see:
|
|
||||||
[ALTER (LTE) attack](https://alter-attack.net/), which explains how a middleware can track (fingerprint) the pages you visit.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Since we already need to somewhat trust the middleware to be able to do anything, we could use that semi-trust state to provide
|
|
||||||
more efficient caching. This can be used to a) reduce our server load and b) protect against DDoS attempts. So I guess at this
|
|
||||||
point it'd no longer be "pure" SCTP as it'd involve MITM relations between the server and the middleware, but that's okay.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(I don't think this is the right place to go in-depth into this idea, tho, so I'll stop here. I like to believe mobile
|
|
||||||
operators would be happy with the possibility of downscaling their link sizes tho. This can even be used for private content
|
|
||||||
e.g. if you have a large chat group you just encrypt the large data (video, etc) and send the group a key, and the data gets
|
|
||||||
cached. Crypto is fun.)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Words about Authentication
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Registering on SCTPub would require an username and a password, as well as an email address and a display name (handle). The
|
|
||||||
username and password never get sent to the server, only the email address and the display name (handle). This means if the
|
|
||||||
server is MITMd or malicious or a phishing server is used, the user's identity (login information) is still protected.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The login interface:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
+-------------------------------------+
|
|
||||||
| Login [x] |
|
|
||||||
| |
|
|
||||||
| Username: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Password: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Instance: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
+-------------------------------------+
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The registration interface:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
+-------------------------------------+
|
|
||||||
| Register [x] |
|
|
||||||
| |
|
|
||||||
| Username: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Password: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Instance: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Email: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
| Handle: _____________ |
|
|
||||||
+-------------------------------------+
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The authentication is done using a public key mechanism. The Ed25519 private key is generated:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
GO ASK ##crypto @ irc.freenode.net BECAUSE THEY INSIST THAT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SPECIFY THIS STUFF WHEN TRYING TO MAKE A PORTABLE PROTOCOL
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The user should be able to change their username/password (aka login key). The user may have multiple login keys.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Once authenticated, the key is to be replaced with a temporary, non-token-based (i.e. no cookies) session key.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
All messages encrypted or signed by the client must include the instance address. All messages received by the instance must
|
|
||||||
check the instance address. Nonces must also be used but w/e you probably know this better than me. Encryption vs signing
|
|
||||||
should be chosen as needed depending on the requirements (see also *Why SCTP?* above).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Words about Authorization
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Authorization should also be done with cryptography, and not OAuth. OAuth is awful. Please don't use OAuth. In fact,
|
|
||||||
authorization should be done with public key *encryption*, not even signing. The keys are revokable. The same
|
|
||||||
mechanism that allows zero-knowledge authentication can also be used for authorization, as it already provides all of this.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Authorization doesn't need the session keys mechanism described above. In fact, that mechanism is a form of authorization.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
User agents may optionally authenticate themselves using an UA key. In other words, messages would be double-signed or
|
|
||||||
double-encrypted, once by the authorization key, once by the UA key. The authorization key should always be the "inner" key
|
|
||||||
while the UA key should always be the "outer" key. (e.g. UA signatures also sign the authorization signature.)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This shouldn't be used by client-side UAs like mobile apps or web browsers.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- - -
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Now that we have some of the security aspects out of the way, let's talk about the community aspects: moderation, interaction,
|
|
||||||
friendship, etc.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Communities
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
One of the goals of SCTPub is to provide for *communities*, something we lost a long time ago with the downfall of forums.
|
|
||||||
Y'know, like phpBB and stuff.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
As such SCTPub *actively encourages* you to have different accounts on different intances, by not only making it easy to do
|
|
||||||
so (with the standard User Agent providing an easy way to sign up to other instances), but also through "dark patterns"
|
|
||||||
(sorry). The main dark pattern is that while ppl can boost your content to other instances' main feeds (separate from your
|
|
||||||
self-curated feed, more similar to the mastodon "Local Timeline" but including all interactions from local users - boosts,
|
|
||||||
etc), but you can't post on other instances like this. Ppl from other instances can choose to follow you, and your content
|
|
||||||
shows up to them, but it's not the same as being in the community. Think like Reddit, but each instance is a different sub.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
While there's no technical mechanism to encourage instances to have different rules, I do believe in different instances
|
|
||||||
having unique rules but still federating together. This would also support this "communities" model, and encourage multiple
|
|
||||||
accounts.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Moderation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
One of the things I miss a lot from the time we had forums is moderation. Back in the day, some forums, as elitist as it may
|
|
||||||
be, would require you to participate in a closed-off area before participating in the rest of the community. While I'm not
|
|
||||||
totally a fan of that idea, I do think a similar idea is warranted: participating locally before federating. This doesn't
|
|
||||||
(on its own) reduce spam on a local level, but it helps a lot on a federated level. The software *should* still allow
|
|
||||||
instances to opt into a pre-approval stage where you don't even interact with the locals, tho.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Additionally, to register on other instances, some metadata would be sent across servers. This metadata would be composed
|
|
||||||
of the originating instance, the target instance, and it would be signed by the user's login key. This metadata is then
|
|
||||||
used to build a chain of trust (web of trust?) of sorts. Also, because you have to sign it, you actually have full control
|
|
||||||
over which instances/accounts know about your other accounts.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Depending on the chain of trust model of each instance, you'd either have to go through the moderator-approval stage on the
|
|
||||||
other instance, or it'd trust you because N other instances trust you, or because N instances on its trusted instances list
|
|
||||||
trust you, or [...]. There's a lot of flexibility here.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This chain of trust can also be stored, and retrieved at login time, allowing for smooth login across many instances (see
|
|
||||||
Communities above). If one of your instances is down, that's no big deal - just login on another! I don't have many
|
|
||||||
accounts across the fediverse because of how hard it is to manage them, but this alone would make it a lot easier.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Moderation requests (e.g. reports) should definitely federate, altho I haven't worked out all of the details with this.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Interactions
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This is a tricky one to explain, because I'm not trying to make another Twitter or Facebook. So bear with me for a second.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Twitter and Facebook have an attention-based model. On Twitter and Facebook you're "supposed" to make posts that bring you
|
|
||||||
attention, like memes or shitposts or flame wars. Reddit also encourages this to a slightly lesser extent. This is NOT
|
|
||||||
something I want, even if they're "technically" interactions. (besides, [there's an xkcd for that](https://xkcd.com/1475/))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Instead, we should look at forums. In forums, there's no pressure to have the most shared content. Instead there's pressure
|
|
||||||
to have the most talked about content. That's what I want when I talk about interactions. I want ppl to talk to me, not
|
|
||||||
just share my posts. Social isolation is awful, and altho liking and sharing do have their place as forms of non-verbal
|
|
||||||
communication (and I'm not proposing we remove them), they just aren't always enough.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
I want to bring back that cozy feel of forums, while taking it to the next level. The federated nature of the fediverse
|
|
||||||
allows for ppl to easily interact with eachother, which brings us one step closer to taking it to the next level.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(I could go on about this all day, but I'm really starving and I'd like to finish this ASAP so I can go eat. it's getting
|
|
||||||
hard to stay focused now.)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Friendship
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Friendship is important, so just allowing interactions across instances while providing a cozy feel isn't enough.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
So there should be a way to keep up with your friends, and putting some emphasis on it. But I don't think it should be the
|
|
||||||
default.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Both Facebook and Twitter have this thing where you can follow ppl. And then you follow too many ppl and it just goes too
|
|
||||||
fast. You can still follow ppl, and it should be encouraged, and there should be lists like in mastodon (or how reddit used to
|
|
||||||
have multireddits?) so you can organize things better, but the local timeline, which should be cozy, should be the default.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(Big instances should be discouraged, while subject-specific/topical instances should be encouraged.)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- - -
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Okay I'm too hungry to keep going. Cya another time tho. o/
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Sorry that this was so long. I needed to write it down somewhere.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
You can boost and send comments on the associated ActivityPub post: <https://cybre.space/@SoniEx2/101557574984189610>
|
|
18
shitlist.md
Normal file
18
shitlist.md
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||||
|
# Shitlist
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This is a list of my shitty ideas.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I know they're shitty because nobody likes them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. [IRC CWs](https://github.com/SoniEx2/CTCP-S/issues/13). Most hated thing I came up with.
|
||||||
|
2. Preloading image descriptions from EXIF on Mastodon, and using them for custom emoji descriptions. Second most hated thing I came up with.
|
||||||
|
3. Easy way to attach (multiple) tags to Mastodon posts based on custom (user-defined) presets.
|
||||||
|
4. Mastodon post visibility that shows up on local timeline and on followers' home feeds, but not federated timeline or profile.
|
||||||
|
5. Image editor with text editor interface.
|
||||||
|
6. 3D programming language/environment.
|
||||||
|
7. 3D desktop environment.
|
||||||
|
8. Self-JITting JIT compiler.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- - -
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
You can boost and send comments on the associated ActivityPub post: <https://cybre.space/@SoniEx2/101805907004238330>
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue