<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with sicherheit]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with sicherheit]]></description><link>https://citiverse.it/tags/sicherheit</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 04:37:30 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://citiverse.it/tags/sicherheit.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:44:28 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[End-to-end Encryption (E2EE) over ActivityPub]]></title><description><![CDATA[@greyarea Alright, I implemented the auth mode. It's not difficult, but it requires the actor of outer activity to be the same as the actor of inner (plaintext) activity. With base mode (5.1.1), the actor of outer activity could be different, which means we can hide the real sender.Do you think it's worth doing this?I think authentication of the sender at the HPKE level shouldn't be necessary because the inner activity is self-authenticating (includes integrity proof).]]></description><link>https://citiverse.it/topic/bf30078c-a939-471a-994d-1fddb814090c/end-to-end-encryption-e2ee-over-activitypub</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://citiverse.it/topic/bf30078c-a939-471a-994d-1fddb814090c/end-to-end-encryption-e2ee-over-activitypub</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[silverpill@mitra.social]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:44:28 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>