
Tox: secure messaging for everyone - NotUncivil
http://tox.im/
======
latitude
Oh, I see you helped yourselves to my Secure Chat logo -

[http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-
Chat](http://dribbble.com/shots/479881-Secure-Chat)

[http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288](http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288)

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo](https://www.google.ca/search?q=secure+chat+logo)
\- first page hit too

Not cool at all, "cool guys around the world".

\--

(edit) Regardless of whether this was copied, over-inspired or independently
conceived (but let's be realistic here), the generally accepted rule of the
game is that the first to the finish line gets to keep the logo. I don't make
my living with logo design, but I did kill a week of sketching, refining and
re-balancing on this one and I do happen to like it a lot. For what it's
worth, I wrote a P2P VPN system in the past (called Hamachi) and I am involved
in p2p and crypto domains in general. So I expect you to extend some
professional courtesy, change the logo and close this matter in an amicable
matter.

~~~
Daiz
Honestly, I don't see the concept being so unique and original that someone
else couldn't have come up with it independently, and frankly the Tox logo has
a much nicer balance (in the Tox logo, the person/keyhole works much better,
whereas in yours it doesn't really work as a "keyhole" in my opinion) than the
versions you linked.

EDIT: The logo was originally made in /gd/ (4chan's graphic design board), and
since the board is archived I managed to track down the thread it was made in.

Here's a somewhat different version that people were playing around with at
first (which also featured a lock, a speech bubble and a keyhole doubling as a
person):

[https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375](https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#86375)

Then someone thought about moving the speech bubble to the keyring here:

[https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186](https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87186)

And then after some iteration they got to the current version:

[https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235](https://archive.foolz.us/gd/thread/86081/#87235)

~~~
tptacek
Strong disagree. That was a clever logo and one I hadn't seen before.

~~~
pairofslacks
Whether or not you "strongly disagree" doesn't change the fact that it was
created independently by other people as well, evidenced by the third comment
in one of the links latitude posted
([http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288](http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/165288))
and in archived threads where multiple people came to the current design on
4chan's /gd/ that Daiz posted.

~~~
latitude
As I said in the (edit) of the original comment, the originality is secondary
to the timing.

When you finalize a logo, you typically run a quick due diligence (a Google
search) to see if you reinvented a wheel. If you did, you scrape it and start
afresh. Tox didn't do that and they should've.

~~~
anologwintermut
Except, you run that check to make sure your not running afoul of someone's
trademark restrictions/ using a logo associated with an existing brand.
(Which, unless I am missing something here, they are not.). They should have
run it, but just because they found your result doesn't mean they had to scrap
something they (allegedly) did themselves.

If they came up with it independently(a very legitimate question given the
similarity of the --- very nice by the way --- logo, but one they seem to have
evidence for) then there seems to be no moral problem or even a legal issue.

You're basically claiming "I thought of it first, there for it's mine" which
is both legally wrong in the US for copyright(independent creation is a
defense) and morally bullshit in the same way that Amazon's one click ordering
patent is.

~~~
latitude
> Your basically claiming

I am not claiming this, this is how things work in the logo design industry.
There are of course copyrights, trademarks and legal matters, but there are
also professional ethics. Ideas and concepts are getting recreated all the
time, that's life. But it's also why people post sketches and ask if anyone
has seen anything similar, only to discard them and move to another concept.

~~~
Daiz
You don't actually seem to be using the logo anywhere, though. On your site
you write that "I had (have) plans to write an Instant Messenger client with
proper support for privacy. This was the logo concept for the project"[1], but
this project does not actually seem to exist (at least not in any public
manner).

As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace? Especially since it's a
FOSS project with noble goals (even if they have yet to reach those goals,
which is not surprising considering how early in the development the entire
project is) and not some commercial entity intending to profit off of it.

[1] [http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes](http://swapped.cc/#!/logotypes)

~~~
latitude
> As such, why not just leave the logo of Tox in peace?

I have plans for it. It wasn't just an idle doodle.

~~~
Craigpd
And I'm quite sure that the logo's in the link below are intended to be used
or are IN use. So, tell me, why are these companies with many highly
experienced legal advisers not fighting eachother over a logo?

[http://img.ctrlv.in/img/51f6b5b849ebf.jpg](http://img.ctrlv.in/img/51f6b5b849ebf.jpg)

~~~
loumf
You can trademark using a round M for burgers, but that doesn't get you the
trademark for banks. Witness Apple Records and Apple Computers.

In this case, the products/ideas are straight-up competitors.

~~~
Craigpd
Only Apple go so far as to take such petty things to court. Most of their law
suits can be generalised as "It looks similar from this side of the room"

~~~
RobAtticus
I think I'm safe in assuming when you say "Only Apple" you mean Apple
Computers. However, it was actually Apple Records who sued Apple Computers,
not the other way around.

~~~
marshray
Yeah, I get the two confused all the time.

Oh wait

------
kostyakow
Tox aims to be a secure replacement for Skype.

There's several other similar projects, but they are usually hard to set up
and use for an average user.

Tox is FLOS software developed by community, and currently licensed under
GPLv3. We are considering changing the license to something more permissive,
so it would be possible to put it on the App & Win8 Stores.

Currently, it is in really early stages of development. But we already have
basic IM, and nCurses interface. We use NaCl library for encryption and will
probably add FFmpeg for video.

We are working on a cross-platform GUI using Qt5. Please note that the screen-
shots on the main website are only mockups, and (in my opinion) should have
been labeled as such.

Since the website is down, here's some links:

Subreddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/projecttox/](http://www.reddit.com/r/projecttox/)

Core code: [https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core](https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core)

Qt GUI code: [https://github.com/nurupo/ProjectTox-Qt-
GUI](https://github.com/nurupo/ProjectTox-Qt-GUI)

Website code: [https://github.com/stal888/ProjectTox-
Website](https://github.com/stal888/ProjectTox-Website)

IRC Freenode chanel: #InsertProjectNameHere

~~~
spacelizard
I don't see the point of changing to a more permissive license just to get on
the iOS and WP8 app stores. Those devices are all compromised to begin with.

~~~
e1ven
When trying to create a secure network, you're constantly going to be dealing
with tradeoffs between enabling communication, and ensuring you can actually
talk with people.

You're right that iOS isn't a completely secure OS.. But using a secure app on
iOS is better than using regular SMS going through AT&T.

Perfect is very difficult to achieve here- Most PCs have nonfree a BIOS, and
even then, many CPUs can be updated by encrypted updates from the
manufacturer.

It very well might be possible to ensure that your machine isn't vulnerable...
But you're not going to have many people to talk to.

I think the tradeoff for having an iOS app is worth it. It puts the users of
the iOS app (and those talking to them) a bit more at risk, but doesn't
compromise the whole network.

Let them make that tradeoff. It's better than talking to an empty room.

~~~
zokier
False sense of security can be even more dangerous.

------
anologwintermut
So this appears to naively use DJB's NACL/crypto_box construction, which is a
curious choice given the existence of OTR for messaging protocols which would
handle things like session key negotiation and provide deniability.

First, If I'm reading the source correctly, they are doing public key
encryption for every message. Which, ok, DJB was a fan of at least for
DNSCurve, but is generally regarded somewhat dimly for efficiency reasons. So
I guess this puts them on one extreme of the Bell Curve or the other. I wonder
which?

[EDIT, removed point about nonce's in handshake]

Funnily enough, at first glance it looks like they covered at least some of
the obvious issues: they do at least attempt to authenticate the session key
and the crypto_box's use of a Nonce prevents replay and re-ordering attacks.

How do they handle video chat? Crypto_box won't work there naively sense
packets will get lost and the nonce's won't be in sync.

~~~
irungentoo
> Nonce's are "Numbers used ONCE", they 1) don't need to be secret and 2) ARE
> NOT encryption keys.

We know.

Putting the nonces in the handshake along with the session public key was
simple.

In the NaCl docs it is advised that if you can keep the nonces secret that you
do so.

~~~
anologwintermut
Out of curiosity, why not use OTR for messaging?

~~~
znq
Probably because OTR only works when both parties are online at the same time.

Edit: that said I haven't looked at their solution. Maybe it has the same
issues. Or worse.

~~~
anologwintermut
Looking at their crypto code, it appears they assume both parties are online.
There is a two way hand shake for key negotiation.

My guess was they wanted to handle things like video chat and file transfer
that OTR doesn't handle. But at least for video chat, I don't think it NACL
will work out of the box either

------
shin_lao
Unconvinced.

* Lossless UDP? Is there a reason not to do TCP?

* There is no way to know if the public key is genuine, so the system is very sensitive to MITM.

* The key exchange is inadequate. Why not do DH if it's just to have session keys?

* The system is very easy to brute force as the acknowledgement is based on a known plain text. This is _very bad_.

A quick glance at [https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core/blob/master/co...](https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core/blob/master/core/net_crypto.c)

I found a potential buffer overflow at line 143. If an attacker sends a large
file, what happens?

Making crypto software is not just a question of wrapping a crypo lib (in that
case NaCl) with a GUI. There are some tricky security issues as how you use
the crypto.

~~~
irungentoo
>Lossless UDP? Is there a reason not to do TCP?

Hole punching.

>There is no way to know if the public key is genuine, so the system is very
sensitive to MITM.

If you want to add someone you need their public key (their id) which is
32bytes (It's small because we use ECC instead of RSA). Unless someone somehow
replaces the key (your id) when you give it to your friend the system should
be secure.

>The key exchange is inadequate. Why not do DH if it's just to have session
keys?

The key exchange is designed that way because we want forward secrecy.

>The system is very easy to brute force as the acknowledgement is based on a
known plain text. This is very bad.

Can you please elaborate on this. If you are speaking about the the second
part of the crypto handshake I can assure you that the fact that the plaintext
is known is not a problem.

>I found a potential buffer overflow at line 143. If an attacker sends a large
file, what happens?

The function read_packet is hard coded to never return something bigger than
MAX_DATA_SIZE.

~~~
shin_lao
Your answer raises my eyebrows even more.

I ask why you don't use DH and you answer "because we want forward secrecy".
DH has been _designed_ for perfect forward secrecy. Therefore I fear we might
have some sort of misunderstanding here.

You don't want to permit known plain text attack as "in depth defense"
approach. If there is ever any weakness in your software, you want to make it
very hard to exploit it. Known plaintext will make exploiting weaknesses in
your PRNG very easy for example.

As for your last comment... If someone ever changes the behavior of
read_packet, you're dead. So I'm sorry, but you have potential buffer
overflow. Think in 4 dimensions Marty! :)

~~~
tptacek
DH wasn't designed for forward secrecy.

~~~
shin_lao
True, my usage of designed was a little bit liberal here. Mr. Diffie is one of
the authors of the first paper to introduce the concept of PFS, but the DH key
exchange algorithm hasn't been designed for PFS but rather for 0-knowledge key
exchange.

Nevertheless, I stand by my remark regarding the pertinence of DH in that
case.

~~~
tptacek
DH is also not a zero-knowledge key exchange algorithm. I think what's
confusing you is that DH (a) is a useful building block for forward-secret
protocols and (b) generates secrets that often require zero-knowledge proofs.

I'm not sure what paper you're referring to but wouldn't be surprised if
Diffie's name was on one of the first "forward secrecy" papers; that stuff
is/was kind of Whit Diffie's beat (not "privacy" per se, but the higher-layer
implications of public key cryptosystems). But Diffie-Hellman predates any
formalized notion of forward secrecy by something like 20 years.

~~~
shin_lao
DH is zero-knowledge in the sense that the two peers have no knowledge of each
other, and yet share a knowledge at the end.

Again, I admit my word usage is a little bit liberal, but although I haven't
done serious crypto for a couple of years now, I have the strange feeling you
are nitpicking. Is it just a feeling? :)

I'm referring to this paper:
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00124891](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00124891)

Curiously, although I've always preferred DLP-based crypto, I actually never
implemented any. So I gladly admit my knowledge of DH key exchange might not
be as profound as I would like it to be.

~~~
tptacek
That's not what "zero knowledge" means. In the context of STS or, more
generally, DH, a ZKP is something you'd add _after_ DH, to verify that one
party or the other had arrived at the expected DH result.

I don't think I'm nitpicking: I see where you're coming from but I think you
might be entirely wrong.

I don't know what it means to "prefer" DLP crypto. Over what? I just don't
understand what you're trying to say with that last graf.

~~~
shin_lao
Well, if you exchange your keys via DH and start using that key to cipher the
communication, you're going to find out very soon if you exchanged the key
properly, won't you?

In essence, once you've agreed on a key you won't keep it to yourself
(although you could, in theory). But am I missing the point? Are we talking
about two different things? I'm talking about ZK from a mathematical point of
view, you know, the cavern, the treasure, the two paths... (if you know this
layman example about ZK)

Unfortunately I cannot go into details, but what I meant about my preference
for DLP is that although I was mathematically more attracted to DLP based
algorithms (when it came to asymmetric cryptography) I didn't really have the
chance to "play" with them and spent more time with RSA.

So it's probable my knowledge of the DH key exchange algorithm is imperfect
and last time I wrote crypto it was very mundane (it was using RC4, that's
saying a lot!), so maybe I should just refrain from commenting about crypto.

~~~
tptacek
SRP is a good example of DH with a bolted-on ZK system; the client and the
server arrive at a key using a hash of a password as, effectively, the basis
of a DH parameter, then use a hash-based zero-knowledge proof to
"authenticate" each other.

------
DanBC
Github maintained by someone with a troll username?

Comments like this:

> _IMPORTANT: release two major sanctioned UIs, one for autists, one with
> inbuilt support for the previous list so that plebs can 't get confused with
> setting it up and autists don't complain about it getting in their way. de
> geso > I would suggest a "Advanced options" where the autists can rejoice
> with all kinds of options (and it doesn't frighten the normalfags, since
> it's not shown by default). Also, 2 UIs would be chaos to maintain._

Talk about not needing to be an expert to use it, but then a "learn more"
button sending people to github?

Not inspiring confidence so far.

It's nice to see they're using an existing crypto library. I'd be surprised if
they haven't made errors implementing it.

~~~
kostyakow
>Github maintained by someone with a troll username?

>Comments like this

>> IMPORTANT: release two major sanctioned UIs, one for autists, one with
inbuilt support for the previous list so that plebs can't get confused with
setting it up and autists don't complain about it getting in their way. de
geso > I would suggest a "Advanced options" where the autists can rejoice with
all kinds of options (and it doesn't frighten the normalfags, since it's not
shown by default). Also, 2 UIs would be chaos to maintain.

The project originated from 4chan's /g/ (technology) board. It works
differently from Reddit and HN, since there's no karma, and the comments are
anonymous.

This caused it to develop a unique culture. On one hand, it enables people to
express their real opinions without being afraid of getting downvoted by
hivemind. On the other hand, it attracts trolls and causes a lot of rudeness
and offensive behaviour.

I like the website, because you can see the true nature of people, and you
don't feel the pressure to say what everyone else wants you to say.

>Talk about not needing to be an expert to use it, but then a "learn more"
button sending people to github?

We were working on this for only about a month, and Tox is not even in the
alpha stage yet. Once we get the GUI working properly, we will surely upload
binaries to the website.

~~~
unknownian
And another thing: /g/ in particular is known for much pointless banter
arguing over the best GNU+Linux distro or giving minor tech support to non-
natives of /g/. Attempts have been made before to make something substantial
on the board and this time it seems we can do it.

~~~
NotUncivil
The list of (supposedly substantial) things /g/ has made as compiled by /g/,
today [1], is as follows:

1\. [http://aloonix.neocities.org/](http://aloonix.neocities.org/)

2\. [https://github.com/notuncivil/host-as-
image](https://github.com/notuncivil/host-as-image) [2]

3\.
[https://github.com/KittyKatt/screenFetch](https://github.com/KittyKatt/screenFetch)

4\. [https://4chan-x.just-believe.in/](https://4chan-x.just-believe.in/)

5\. [http://tox.im/](http://tox.im/)

6\. [http://biebian.sourceforge.net/](http://biebian.sourceforge.net/)

The above list is in no particular order.

[1]
[https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S35615929#p35616305](https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S35615929#p35616305)

[2] Full disclosure: this code is mine and I am the one who proposed it for
that list. I also submitted a Show HN for it.

~~~
unknownian
I had forgotten about some of those. The various sites /g/ has put up are
pretty good too.

~~~
NotUncivil
That list doesn't have
[http://logicalincrements.com/](http://logicalincrements.com/), which may be
the best thing to come out of /g/. It's great for picking PC configurations.

------
irungentoo
Since you managed to kill the website:

[https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core](https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core)

Tox is a completely decentralized secure messaging service which aims to
replace skype.

It it still in heavy development.

So far we have IM working almost perfectly but no completed GUI yet except for
a basic ncurses interface used to test the core.

For the detailed info on how everything works see:
[https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core/wiki](https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/wiki)

~~~
igravious
Hey, congrats on the hard work. I'm going to try it out. Is there a
bird's-eye-view on how you have made it secure?

~~~
PhearTheCeal
[https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-
Core/wiki/Crypto](https://github.com/irungentoo/ProjectTox-Core/wiki/Crypto)

------
unknownian
Minor contributor here: we've been trying to recruit help from HN multiple
times with no luck. /g/ recognizes that the dev talent on the web resides
here, so if you have a mastery of any of the needed skills (C, GUI design)
we'd love your help.

------
yogo
It might be useful to mention more about how encryption is done on the website
itself since that is the main selling point. As it stands I have to go through
the source code.

~~~
rorrr2
Even if you do go through the code and don't find any bugs/backdoors, doesn't
mean there are none. Both encryption and secure communications are pretty hard
to implement right.

~~~
yogo
Right. That is always the case. I was only referring to a high-level
description about the kind of encryption being used and what made it secure.

------
runn1ng
OK, /g/entoomen, I will keep saying what I said in one of your threads.

I feel it's strange that your IP is shared to the world together with your
public key, so it is, in this sense, anti-anonymous.

You cannot even use it with Tor, because it uses UDP.

~~~
Zash
This is why I believe in the federated client-server model. It is much easier
to build a system with a few trusted parties that a system with zero trusted
parties.

Eg in XMPP, only your server sees your IP address until you initiate some out-
of-band p2p thing such as file transfer. Federated client-server architectures
such as email and XMPP are also pretty well understood by now, especially
email has been around a long time.

Trade-offs, trade-offs everywhere!

------
fernly
As a naive potential user I am willing to take the assurance of proper crypto
and forward secrecy. What needs to be addressed also is the issue of metadata.
It is the broad collection and easy analysis of metadata -- NOT content --
that makes NSA monitoring so sinister. By knowing all about who you connect
with, when, for how long, and with what regularity, they can know a vast
amount about you.

What of the who/when/how-long/how-often metadata is evident when using Tox? As
compared to normal skype or IM, that is?

------
CompulsiveCo
This has been a project on 4chan's /g/ board that began after Snowden's
initial leak. Its good to see that this project has developed into something
substantial.

------
BadassFractal
I'm glad that people familiar with security and cryptography in this thread
are trying to poke holes in the product. As long as the development team uses
these comments as productive criticism and fixes potential issues, everybody
benefits in the end.

------
osth
Questions:

0\. How important is simplicity (modularity) to the project?

1\. Will Tox work for user "idontrungentoo"? Will it compile on Solaris, BSD,
etc.

2\. Will the GUI be optional? If not, why is it mandatory?

3\. Can Tox work without DHT? What if two users just want to call each other
without connecting to tens, hundreds or thousands of strangers? If there are
problems with the DHT, are they SOL?

It would be good to have competing teams all working on some similar system (a
Skype alternative) and then have an open bake off, instead of just idle
criticism in forums like this one. This way we could see which system actually
works the best instead of just theorizing about design choices and taking
random anecdotes from alleged users in forums on faith.

~~~
syjer
from the github repo:

0: it's a lib, and there are at least 2 client being developed (ncurse and qt)

1: it currently compile on linux/os x/window

2: see 0.

3: no, but you could potentially host a "private" boostrap node and have a
separate network.

------
runn1ng
/g/ has finally managed to make this somehow usable?

Well, congratulations.

------
lvh
It is unfortunate that this thing's name collides with tox, the testing tool.

~~~
northwest
Why not rename one of the two to: detox (it'd even make sense)

~~~
X-Istence
How about renaming this Tox to something else, since Python's testing tool has
existed for quite a while.

------
dkhenry
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if your intent is to get around NSA
snooping this doesn't do that. All you have really done is made sure that your
communications are target for closer scrutiny. Remember I don't care _what_
you say I care _who_ your saying it to. Once I know who is talking to who and
which person might be a good source of information there are much easier ways
to get that information then trying to break encryption[1]

1\. [http://xkcd.com/538/](http://xkcd.com/538/)

~~~
pyre
You lack imagination. :P

If the NSA is collecting everything, then it's possible to go back in time
once you become a person of interest. This doesn't necessarily help you if you
are actively planning something that the government is interested in, but if
you become a political opponent to the NSA, they could look into your past for
skeletons to blackmail you with. Who you are talking to may not give them
enough information to do anything without the content of the conversations.

~~~
dkhenry
I don't think they need the content if They can identify the participants it
works even better.

""" I see in 2013 you had many long _encrypted_ conversations with someone we
now know to be a pedophile, what were you talking about exactly """

~~~
pyre
On the other hand, if you're having an affair with someone that you have a
good excuse to talk to all of the time (family friend, co-worker, etc), the
content matters.

Also, that "OMG you were talking to a pedo!" threat doesn't mean much of the
conversations were innocuous. To make that threat, they would need a good
confidence that you couldn't (for whatever reason[1]) just turn over chat logs
proving that nothing was amiss.

[1] E.g. The chat reveals something you want to keep hidden, even if it
doesn't relate to the fact that the person is a paedophile, or maybe the logs
just don't exist, etc.

------
mylorse
Can anyone convince me why I should contribute to this project when I can
already use the following?: [[bitmessage.org][Bitmessage]]
[[freenetproject.org][Freenet with a chat client]] [[gnunet.org][GNUnet with
chat]] [[i2p2.de][I2P-Messenger]] [[retroshare.sf.net][RetroShare]]

PS You could also apply a simple Icecast and/or MPD video stream under those
proctols, even [[stomp.github.io][STOMP]].

------
rodolphoarruda
"...application that allows you to connect with friends and loved ones."

...who know what to do next after they click the 'download' button and are
forwarded to a GitHub page. I'd like to give the app a try, but I look at that
page and I don't know where to start.

~~~
PhearTheCeal
The app isn't even in alpha stage yet, it was started a month ago.

------
thaweatherman
Another app that is the same as good existing solutions and is an outgrowth of
spying revelations. Easy secure messaging, calling, etc apps already exist and
are freely available. Once Whisper Systems apps are out for iOS at the end of
the summer the bases will be covered.

------
nfkd
Apparently, we can't use the name "Tox":
[http://tox.readthedocs.org/](http://tox.readthedocs.org/)

Here are the most liked alternatives proposed on anther thread:

tala

whispr

mila

aspis

orwell

nota

extasi

eave

fabula

~~~
scdoshi
tala:

I'm guessing you know it means 'lock' in Hindi?
[http://translate.google.com/#en/hi/lock](http://translate.google.com/#en/hi/lock)

~~~
e12e
Also "[to] speak" in Swedish, and in certain Norwegian dialects, one of the
official written forms of Norwegian[1], and in the old Norse language.

[1] it's complicated.

------
untitaker_
It's kinda impressive in how many languages the website got translated from
the start.

------
northwest
If you're the author, you should add it to the list:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29)

------
floor_
They're pushing the hell out of this on the /g/ technology board on 4chan. I
wonder if large group chat rooms will be a new way of sharing files over
secured/private connections.

------
hnha
why not exchange "proper" keys when both parties are first both online?
messaging that does not let me send messages to offline peers is quite useless
in many cases. I would much prefe

------
astonex
It's funny how many focus on what are rather trivial things, the logo and
name, instead of looking at the actual things which matter: the code, the
security, and the idea itself.

------
mars
why not hop on the xmpp train? xmpp just lacks a great client incl. some cross
device synch capabilities, but besides that is secure, decentralized, open and
a standard...

------
D9u
All this crap about a fucking logo?

What about the technical merits of Tox?

------
chuckd1356
How's their service going to stop a Man-in-the-middle attack, client endpoint
exploits? Or the HN effect crippling their marketing servers.

------
fracchio
I do like your project, why not putting it on indiegogo or pledgie to help the
development and large the audience?

------
cpursley
This is great. A cross platform web app would be icing on the cake. Built on
something open source like Lungojs.

------
Plexion
Website owner here: Currently getting a 50k pps DDoS. It'll be over shortly, I
hope.

EDIT: It's done.

~~~
thaweatherman
?

------
snowfox
Wow how did you get it translated to so many different languages?

------
codebeaker
Whilst we're bashing them for IP theft, can anyone tell me why they're using
the Github Octocat logo for their “Freedom” point? It doesn't appear to link
to Github?

~~~
xymostech
They host their code on github. If you scroll about 100 pixels down, they say
that. I'm not sure whether that's still okay (the not linking part) but
they're not just randomly using github images.

------
gsibble
Also might want to get a better server. I'm not trusting a messaging service
whose marketing site I can't even reach.....

~~~
kostyakow
>I'm not trusting a messaging service whose marketing site I can't even reach

You would rather trust a huge corporation instead of a community-developed
project?

~~~
riquito
I suppose he meant that he can't trust a product of someone who can't event
run his website, since the software may be unstable. Security is not involved.
For a new product the website should give to the visitors the feel that you
are a professional (I'm trying to give a constructive critic here)

------
mtct
Well done /g/!

------
donnfelker
Brought to you by the NSA.

