alt Hacker NewsI find it very hard to trust any email service that claims to be E2EE without an audit by a reputable firm like Cure53 or Trail of Bits.
I signed up to give it a brief test and immediately noticed that emails are returned from the server in plain text. This means that the emails are decrypted on the server, which defeats the entire purpose of E2EE. The encrypted email contents and metadata should be returned to the user and decrypted on the client.
It's also painfully obvious that the entire thing is vibe-coded. While that in itself isn't an issue, it raises scrutiny. If the author doesn't have a full understanding of the code their LLM generates, some nasty bugs could be lurking.
Not very promising.
Replies
I guess we need to coin a new term, something like VibeE2EE. As in "we asked to make something E2EE but we have no idea what it has made, nor we asked anyone to audit it (because it wouldn't pass a code review, let alone security audit)"
Ah yes, the good old “E2E”E. Is it the kind where they say the Server is an “end” and therefore that makes it E2E?
I'm not wild about this benchmark. There are well-known firms (definitely not saying that about Trail! no experience at all with the other one here) that issue public-facing audit docs that read the same no matter what the project scope was.
If you're keying off 3rd party assessment, which is sane, you should be evaluating the combination of the testing team (the best firms will publish reports with the names of the consultants on them) and the scope and depth of the results. The company shouldn't matter; the scope should matter a lot.
A meaningful security assessment for an "E2EE mail service" is nosebleed expensive.