I wouldn't call it Pixelfed's vulnerablility, but a reminder that nothing on Fediverse is private. Even if Pixelfed is fixed, someone can create rogue instance to read other's private posts.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
162 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
32395 readers
439 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If I understand it correctly, it's kind of both. Sounds like Pixelfed didn't follow best practice setting privacy guardrails in follow request approval, and it exacerbates the inherent lack of privacy on the fediverse.
You're right of course, anyone (with the coding chops) could've intentionally set up an instance that does the same for malicious purposes. That should be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks ActivityPub is a great sexting medium.
I dont know about other fedi services, but lemmy tells you at message composition, that DMs are not safe/private. If pixelfed doesnt do this, then that is really the issue.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I kinda of lean towards the idea of "private accounts" being a bad idea as a result, just because it creates a false sense of security. But I'm not in the target demographic so idk
Yeah this just sounds like one of the drawbacks of a federated system. In order for people on remote servers to be able to see your "private" posts, your local server has to feed that info to them and trust them to handle it appropriately.
Wait, are new instances federated by default?
I thought admins had to choose who they were federated with.
There's easily over a thousand fediverse instances at this point, having to whitelist them all would be impractical.
Okay but this demonstrates why defaulting to federation is a bad idea, doesn't it?
The issue is that if you don't default to federation, it becomes essentially impossible for new instances to join the fediverse. A potential new instance would have to go around to every single existing instance and ask to be allowlisted, which is onerous for both the new instances and for the large server admins who would be getting tons of requests. It would also essentially kill small-scale selfhosting as a result.
The entire point of the fediverse is to federate. Not federating by default kills discoverability and the potential for discoverability among other things
It demonstrates that nothing on the fediverse is private, and bad hacks that pretend otherwise are a terrible idea.
Imo it demonstrates that for certain threat models the fediverse simply doesn't have the 100% secure answers.
load more comments
(1 replies)
if you deliver a letter to your cousin, and they leak it to all their friends, is it the post system's fault? instances federate by default, but private posts require actual intention. if i make a private post, explicitly mark it as private, deliver it to your instance and then your instance leaks it, i'd blame the instance, not the system. even signal can leak if you send your stuff to unintended parties.
someone can create a rogue instance
you shouldn't send private stuff to unreliable parties. big software and big instances have a reputation, and it's constantly up to you whether sending them something or not. when @[email protected] follows you, check where they're from. if you just accept follows left and right, are your followers-only posts really private? and if you direct message someone on some sketchy instance, you still need to trust them to respect your privacy. it's the same on signal, e2ee doesn't make a difference
this is why i completely blame pixelfed here: it breaks trust in transit and that's unacceptable because it makes the system untrustworthy. you can get followed by sketchy people on mastodon.social and they will only see what you send them. in this case, other people can see what you post, regardless of you sending it to them or not, and regardless of the target leaking it or not
The private account would still need to accept a follower from that rogue instance.
Edited to add: I got this around the wrong foot, see the reply to this. /edit
Not necessarily, as clearly stated in the linked article:
But sure enough, the toot was followers only and the person that had liked it was not following her Mastodon account. When I took a look at the other persons profile on pixelfed.social, I noticed that the instance was nevertheless claiming the account was following her.
When pixelfed assumes that an account is not locked, it immediately treats a follow attempt as completed. For the server on the other end it looks like a normal follow request. It could be rejected, and pixelfed would still be convinced that a follow relation exists.
Yes, necessarily.
Importantly, your Mastodon or GoToSocial instance isn’t handing your private posts to any random server, just because it asks. The problem only becomes apparent when you have at least one legit accepted follower from a Pixelfed server
Ah, good catch. Thanks!
Abolutely necessarily.
it works like this:
@[email protected]has a "followers only account".@[email protected]is a friend of above account, requested access and was granted. This now causesmastodon.example.comto push all messages of@privateusertopixelfed.example.com.@[email protected]requests access, but gets ignored. But the pixelfed instance marks the user as "follows@privateuser"- In the interface of
@someuser, the messages are shown as expected. - In the interface of
@anotheruser, they are also shown. Because PF basically does a database "select messages of users that the user follows", without checking if the access was ever granted.
Important to note, that this would not happen, if the messages weren't already pushed to the server due to the "allowed" user
Yes, but account/instance would need to actively research which instances are rogue, and beware of them. It could be solved by creating tool which would automatically detect this ~~vulnerability~~ feature.
If you have a private account, why would you accept a follow from a user on a rogue instance?
I guess you would need to trust your friend to vet whatever instance they join. And you’d have to vet that you aren’t getting catfished by a threat actor using a friends identity but those are all problems regardless of whether that’s fixed since a malicious admin would have access to your posts so your friend can subscribe to them in the first place, whether this is fixed or not
private posts are only sent to instances that either your followers or the list of people you want to see the post are on. If they all co-operate, you will be fine.
if they all cooperate
Gonna stop you right there
Its like email, an email server can decide to expose everyone's emails to the public, so don't add that email to your mailing list or email chain.
100% yes. But I think people also drastically overestimate the chain of trust within email. Never send anything over email that you don't want going all over the place.
I really wish people (normies) could figure our pgp for email.
private posts are only sent to instances
Well, obviously they’re sent to some other ones, or else this wouldn’t be an issue.
This is a design flaw in the protocol. If your instance is going to send your private posts to other people, they’re not private. The authors need to fix your instance software, not demand that every other software in existence needs to “cooperate” and find out whether they’re “private” and not show them to the users if they are.
No, Imagine this
There is @[email protected] their is their friend, @[email protected]. bob also follows @[email protected]
If bob makes a private post (ie, followers only), only the instances of people he follows will recieve the post. The instance will see that its supposed to be private, and not show it to everyone.
This may, gotosocial.example, mastodon.example and pixelfed.example have the post, but don't show it. misskey.example won't have the post.
Then, if gotosocial.example (hypothetically) had a bug where it ignored posts visibility settings, those posts would be shown, since the post is sent to that server. If misskey.example had a similar bug, nothing would happen as the post wouldn't have reached that server anyway.
Yeah, so there's no real way to implement private posts on Mastodon.
I mean, it is fine if you want to implement sort of "best effort" semi-privacy and make it clear to everyone involved that that's what it is, but for any reasonable definition of "private," the requirement that it not get shown to people outside the list of people allowed to see it needs to be enforced better than this. There will always be server software that doesn't "cooperate." That's just the nature of open distributed systems. If you're making assurances to your users that their posts will be private, you need to be the one enforcing that, not everyone else on the network and the protocol needs to be set up with the ability for that to happen (which ActivityPub is not, which means it's misleading that someone told users that they can have "private" posts via this hack.)
I wouldn't consider it a hack, as the protocol was actually made with these posts in mind. Public posts weren't the focus of activitypub.
I would consider it similar to email, should we abandon it (yes, but not because of this) just because a malicious email server started publishing all the emails it recieved? AP is just email but social media.
I would consider it similar to email, should we abandon it (yes, but not because of this) just because a malicious email server started publishing all the emails it recieved? AP is just email but social media.
Yes, and people implemented PGP for encrypted email, and also made SMTP over TLS the standard, so that they wouldn't have to demand that every router and every SMTP server everywhere on the internet agree not to republish or store secret information that was passing through it, because it started to become understood that email was in no way private.
A proper standard for private posts would be similar. You could have all private posts be encrypted with a rotating key, for example, and have them decrypted by anyone who had the key, on the client side, and stored and transmitted in encrypted form. Being approved to follow the private posts would involve your user being given a copy of the key through some kind of private key exchange. It sounds complex (and it would be, a little), and it would involve moving to the client some of the key management that currently happens on the instance server (and thus undoes some of the actually good design of ActivityPub, by just putting the instance software back in the position of keeping every actor's keys for them and doing all the crypto work on behalf of the users). Anyway, it would be work and involve some redesign. I'm not saying that's what they should have done. I'm saying that's what having private posts as a feature would mean. Anything else is non-private posts that are pretending to be private posts.
load more comments
(3 replies)
email works the same way. it's impossible to implement private emails? if you cc your email to [email protected] and it leaks, would it be fair to complain about the whole email system?
e: should have read deeper first its already been said
this is wrong, you're assuming incorrectly. private posts get sent to only intended recipients. pixelfed allows other recipients on the same server to read that. it's not your instance software, it's pixelfed, please dont spread misinformation based on uninformed assumptions
Some more US war plans?
Whut. I mean, probably, but not in this thread?
well that's not good
Nope. It looks like crash testing security in production, or "fuck around and find out" with other people's privacy.
I didn't even know "private" posts were a thing on the fediverse but now I guess I know to watch out for that. Maybe I'll post some privates after losing about 30 lbs
Its like email, if a server decided that it would expose everyones emails, everyones emails are exposed.
does it only effect privates? what about officers, like, say, captains?
Give it a rest. A fork of Mastodon created a new abstraction for "private posts" and started sending to instances some posts that were marked in a new way as "private," and now they're trying to blame Pixelfed for not adopting their homemade standard for what posts their servers are sending out to everyone that they're not supposed to show, and what ones they are supposed to show. And, Pixelfed fixed it once they became aware of the issue.
It's fixed in 1.12.5. Why is this not titled "Mastodon instances claim to their users to offer 'private' posts but send them out exactly like normal posts, get surprised when software that hasn't magically adopted their new standard is showing them to people"?
load more comments
(4 replies)
periodic reminder to not touch dansup software and to move away from pixelfed and loops
dansup is not competent and quite problematic and it's not even over
developers with less funding (even 0) contributed way more to fedi, they're just less vocal
dansup is all bark no bite, stop falling for it
Periodic reminder that shitting on someone who's making free software and giving it away is an entitled, counterproductive, selfish thing to do.
I have no interest in using Pixelfed or Loops, it's just not my thing. But the idea of criticizing the person who's making them because of a variety of made-up reasons is a bunch of crap.
Also, fedi developers should get paid. They're doing work. They should get paid. The idea that someone who's optimizing the video pipeline for the next ad network can make $150k a year and it's a problem if Dansup fills up his fundraiser because people love the stuff he's already done is, also, a bunch of crap.
variety of made up reasons
you are not engaging with the argument, just stating ideals
fedi developers should get paid? yes, look at gts and mastodon
fedi devs should also be held accountable of their fumbles
dansup showed quite some incompetence in handling security, delivering features, communicating clearly and honestly and treating properly third party devs
it's fair for one person to not be able to handle a big software with big instance and big usercount. mastodon has a legal entity and a team, gts has no flagship instance, is aggressively open source and gathered a lot of contributors, dansup is winging it alone and failing
let's just make a big fixed point of failure of dansup, what could go wrong ... ?
check out mitra too, could probably use some funding because it's transparent and delivers rather than promising the moon and delivering CVEs (but with a grant AND a kickstarter, maybe pay some other devs??????)
like there are thousands of fedi projects, give 10 bucks to the little dev doing it for fun in their bedroom, more money will not make dansup more competent
you are not engaging with the argument, just stating ideals
Correct. I've engaged in the past with people who are convinced Dansup is committing some kind of horrible sins. I examined the arguments in detail and decided they were bullshit.
I don't really feel like rehashing the arguments again, but you can read if you want to see them:
https://ponder.cat/post/1151008/1352919
https://ponder.cat/post/2151188
I actually wanted to find some more of the more transparently bullshit ones, but they had been removed by mods because they were transparently bullshit. Like I said, I've seen enough criticisms and had them turn out to be bullshit to reach my limit, there was one earlier today that I looked into a decent amount of detail, too.
view more: next ›