From 7643b8c2de547bb03405f48cdf0b93a409befe7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: inference Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:44:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update webpage "Blog - #2" from version "6.0.0-beta.1" to "7.0.0-beta.1" --- ...sted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.xhtml | 22 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/blog/untrusted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.xhtml b/blog/untrusted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.xhtml index 213b3d4..21d6e09 100644 --- a/blog/untrusted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.xhtml +++ b/blog/untrusted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.xhtml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ - + @@ -16,23 +16,23 @@

Blog - #2

Untrusted: The Issue with Decentralisation

Posted: 2022-06-30 (UTC+00:00)

Updated: 2023-11-11 (UTC+00:00)

-

Introduction

+

Introduction

A recent trend is seeing people move towards decentralised services and platforms. While this is reasonable and I can understand why they are doing such a thing, they are seemingly doing it without thinking about the possible @@ -54,9 +54,9 @@ will discuss some of the security issues with the decentralised model.

-

Examples

+

Examples

-

Messaging

+

Messaging

When it comes to messaging your contacts on a centralised platform, such as Twitter or Facebook, the keys are pinned to that user account, using the user's password as the method of @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@

-

Solution

+

Solution

I'll cut to the chase; there isn't a definitive solution. The best way to handle this situation is to design your threat model and think about your reasoning for avoiding centralised platforms. Is it lack of trust of a specific @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ would make this impossible to implement in any form.

-

Conclusion

+

Conclusion

Do not demand anonymity; demand privacy and control of your own data. Complete anonymity makes it impossible to have a root of trust, and is typically never necessary. It is possible for someone else to hold your keys, without them