I wrote my own. I aimed for a different UX than most services. For my use case I have a few devices that I often share files between. So opening the tool on both devices was a bit annoying. Instead you select the file on the first device and you get a push notification on the other. Then the transfer is done over WebRTC (locally if possible). All communication is done end-to-end encrypted and over your browser's push service.
Hosted: https://filepush.kevincox.ca/
It would be great to have an RSS feed of reports in a community. This way it can be piped into external tools and notification mechanisms.
The problem with Yubikey is that it doesn't have a good enough management story for broad use. I do use it for a few core sites (like GitHub) but if I lose a key I need to get a replacement and register that replacement with every site I have set up U2F 2FA on. This is ok with a few core accounts but doesn't scale to the hundreds of sites that I have an account with. I am sure to miss a few and then either I can't log in with the new key or get completely locked out when I lose that key and get a second replacement.
Yeah, this is important to realize. Most good 2FA implementations offer TOTP which doesn't need a proprietary app. You can store all of your 2FA secrets in whatever app or password manager you like.
So yes, it is slightly better, but in practice that difference probably doesn't matter. If you use U2F then you may have a meaningful security increase but IMHO U2F is not practical to use on every site due to basically being impossible to manage credentials.
So yes, it is better. But for me using random passwords and a password manager it isn't worth the bother.
It is also worth noting that Firefox Sync is end-to-end encrypted. So the amount of data the server gets is quite minimal. (This is unlike the sync of a lot of other major browsers.) So unless you want to hide your IP and activity times from the host self-hosting isn't critical.
They'll brick your device if a part can't be verified so that isn't much different they destroying. Maybe they don't require repair shops to hand over personal info, but they do require device identifiers so I wouldn't be surprised if that is basically identical.
Is this worse? It sounds pretty similar.
How exactly does Samsung police this? Surely the repair shop could just… not tattle?
Well there is a contract in place and there would be consequences for not upholding the agreement. Sure, they could probably get away with it for quite a while. But it likely isn't worth the risk, they would rather just out Samsung as being a piece of shit and go on their merry way.
It would be pretty easy to catch this as well. Samsung can just occasionally submit a phone with a known third party part for repair and see if the expected report comes in.
The answer is yes. The receiver can do whatever they want with the "localpart" of the email address.
However you will need to find a provider that supports it. For available services you are probably looking at one of two options:
To address however you want.If you want full control you can run your own email server. For example that is what I do. I generate addresses in the form of {description}-{signature}@me.example. So if they try to remove stuff the signature will fail and the mail will get rejected (well actually just heavily weighted as spam). I do this using Rspamd with a custom rule written in Lua. Full details of this setup are here: https://kevincox.ca/2022/07/07/signed-email-addresses/
You can make contributes sign an CLA to allow the licenses you need for the console release. Some people may not want to but it seems like a reasonable compromise if you want to support consoles.
I thought Apple implemented push notifications? Or did they just say they would? Either way you can file the bug with them I think.
Or wait until they allow you to install a browser that isn't dragging it's feet.