▲ 312 ▼ X is now offering me end-to-end encrypted chat — you probably shouldn't trust it yet | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com) submitted 1 year ago by ardi60@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children) I've run a cryptography forum for 10 years. I can tell snake oil from the real deal. Musk's Twitter doesn't know how to do key distribution. The only major company using HSMs the way Musk intends to is Apple, and they have far more and much more experienced cryptographers than X does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You sound like an antivaxxer defending a crank permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children) I've run a cryptography forum for 10 years. I can tell snake oil from the real deal. Musk's Twitter doesn't know how to do key distribution. The only major company using HSMs the way Musk intends to is Apple, and they have far more and much more experienced cryptographers than X does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You sound like an antivaxxer defending a crank permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You sound like an antivaxxer defending a crank permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) You sound like an antivaxxer defending a crank permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) If you can't demonstrate that you know more about cryptography then me, it's time for you to admit you're wrong permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) This is incoherent bullshit. You're choosing to pretend it's nothing so you can dismiss legitimate criticism. An engineer hearing about some novice trying to build a plane using difficult methods that only one or two companies with immense expertise has succeeded at would be correct to assume that plane would be unsafe. A doctor hearing about a tiny clinic attempting treatments that only big medical research facilities have pulled off are correct to assume they're charlatans. A cryptographer hearing about somebody attempting to build E2EE using methods that very few are capable of implementing correctly and without having the expertise on hand are correct to call that snakeoil. Cryptography is INFAMOUSLY complex. E2EE is infamously difficult to make easy ("Johnny still can't encrypt"). The worst part is that cryptographic failures are almost always 100% silent! There's a reason almost everybody copies Signal's protocol, and that everybody else who does it in-house keeps having vulnerabilities. Multi user key management (PKI) specifically is wildly complex. They're doing cryptography in the browser - famously difficult to make it work decently because there's no reliable code pinning solution, no reliable protected key storage (no TPM protected keystore) and absolutely no auditability. And that's on top of the risk of getting served malicious Javascript via XSS attacks, or by the host getting hacked, or by a maliciously issued certificate (there's 800+ certificate authorities, FYI, no cert pinning = easy for a state level actor to MITM) They're not doing transparency logs of user keys. Even whatsapp has started doing that. I haven't seen evidence of them attempting user key verification Twitter/X has only displayed signs of LACKING the necessary expertise. To pretend that's wishful thinking from me just reveals how little you care about expertise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 year ago Again, you sound like an antivaxxer, and you're ignoring his history of failure, including SPECIFICALLY FAILING AT ENCRYPTED DM BEFORE https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725247/twitter-encrypted-dm-security-vulnerabilities-linda-yaccarino You're questioning experts with absolutely no justification other than your own animosity, assuming the experts too are driven by animosity instead of true concerns permalink fedilink source parent