• dracs@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    For Signal/Molly, it’s less that the notification is encrypted as I understand it. It’s more the notification content is just “Hey! Stuff happened” for Signal. The app then reaches out directly to the Signal servers to see what’s new. So the message content is never sent via the push notification service (UnifiedPush or Google’s service).

    • nutbutter
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Oh yes. Like, I selfhost both, ntfy and MollySocket. I am sure MollySocket does encrypt the data.

      • dracs@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        I’m self hosting both too. MollySocket’s docs are pretty clear that it never gets an encryption key for your account, so it can’t read your messages. It only gets/forwards alerts that something happened on your account AFAIK. So I’m not sure what data it has that’s worth encrypting.

        • nutbutter
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          Then why do have to use both, a unified push server and a mollysocket, if both are doing the exact same thing?

          • dracs@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            The UnifiedPush server is intended to be a single source your phone can keep a persistent connection open to, rather than needing a connection per service/app (this is how Google’s Firebase notifications work too).

            As Signal doesn’t support UnifiedPush, MollySocket keeps a permanent connection open to Signal’s servers to listen for new activity and forward them to your UnifiedPush server. This saves your phone keeping a permanent connection open to Signal’s servers and draining your mobile battery more.