>"Demonsaw 4 is an encrypted communications platform that allows you to chat, message, and transfer files without fear of data collection or surveillance from governments or corporations. Demonsaw 4 is free for individual and commercial use."
What's /g/s consensus on this? They are currently working on an alternative to Signal called Enigma that uses the same technology.
>>61916066
>>>/pol/
>>61916107
ironic shitposting is still shitposting, cumpai
>>61916123
>this triggers the nazi
Lmao
>>61916066
Nobody here has the chops to properly evaluate crypto protocols and implementations of them. It'd be a good idea to be very skeptical of any new encrypted-communications program until some people who do have that kind of ability have looked at it, though.
>>61916107
>anyone who doesn't want all their communications monitored is a Nazi!
that's funny, I thought just last week you were saying that anyone who doesn't want all their communications monitored was a pedophile.
>>61916138
no, but unwarranted board redirecting is rude. especially when you don't point out what part is considered "wrong-think" in your opinion.
Demonsaw looks rad.
>>61916066
4 is not open source. Its github is empty.
Consensus: it's shit.
>>61916273
this unfortunately. his reasons for not releasing his source code are dubious, like: "people can re-compile it with malware" and "0.10% people will find it useful".
>>61916588
Not even worth considering then. Open source isn't a sufficient condition for crypto software to be considered secure, but it's certainly a necessary condition.
>>61916066
the dumb name alone makes me skeptical of it
>>61916066
Someone should just add encryption to limewire. Its still open source after all.
>>61916066
>that boast
Guaranteed honeypot.
>>61916107
Faggot tries to derail thread
>>61916066
So it's literally Wire? Is it even open source?
>>61916066
All "encryption" tools are honeypots unless you code it yourself. Moreover, they know their users have something to hide.
>>61917641
previous versions *is* to some extent, version 4 is not at all.
Reasons stated in >>61916588
If you ask on the client you get met with "Why do you need the source if control the infrastructure?" and "Its probably not for you, you don't have to use it"
>>61917727
In this case it shouldn't be trusted. Moving on.