Honestly if your using tuta tho its no different then proton. Both are crap for different reasons. One has crap privacy enforcement and the other is ran by a dick head.
Seriously it baffles me that anyone thinks a german company is remotely trust worthy for security. Its a fucking joke. Any country that has a deal with five eyes should just be assumed its compromised up front. If theres no out side enforcement of security then any promise of it from the inside is worthless.
E2E encryption doesn’t matter when you can’t trust the actual host in the first place.
E2E encryption doesn’t matter when you can’t trust the actual host in the first place.
Not referring to Tuta specifically, but isnt that the point of E2E encryption? That you have assurance even if you don’t trust the host? Unless they don’t demonstrate and publish what encryption mechanism they use of course.
Your not entirely wrong. It’s mostly the fact, that even with e2e your still relying on their word that they aren’t doing something shady or do something stupid. There’s no external force keeping them honest.
One is none two is one. Someone’s word is good but someone’s word, and another keeping them honest is better.
If your going to trust someone else it’s better some form of equality in the deal. As a consumer to a corp that’s basically impossible with out a legal enforcement layer.
I was using Tuta to mailbox as an example for this very reason: you can move your catch all inbox from Tuta tomailbox.org, since it also supports catch all. I’m trying to highlight the benefit that using a service with catch all functionality adds, which is flexibility and easy migration. It was not meant as a recommendation to use Tuta.
Honestly if your using tuta tho its no different then proton. Both are crap for different reasons. One has crap privacy enforcement and the other is ran by a dick head.
Seriously it baffles me that anyone thinks a german company is remotely trust worthy for security. Its a fucking joke. Any country that has a deal with five eyes should just be assumed its compromised up front. If theres no out side enforcement of security then any promise of it from the inside is worthless.
E2E encryption doesn’t matter when you can’t trust the actual host in the first place.
Not referring to Tuta specifically, but isnt that the point of E2E encryption? That you have assurance even if you don’t trust the host? Unless they don’t demonstrate and publish what encryption mechanism they use of course.
Your not entirely wrong. It’s mostly the fact, that even with e2e your still relying on their word that they aren’t doing something shady or do something stupid. There’s no external force keeping them honest.
One is none two is one. Someone’s word is good but someone’s word, and another keeping them honest is better.
If your going to trust someone else it’s better some form of equality in the deal. As a consumer to a corp that’s basically impossible with out a legal enforcement layer.
I was using Tuta to mailbox as an example for this very reason: you can move your catch all inbox from Tuta to mailbox.org, since it also supports catch all. I’m trying to highlight the benefit that using a service with catch all functionality adds, which is flexibility and easy migration. It was not meant as a recommendation to use Tuta.