wormhole-crypto VS hyperboot

There is source code you just have to read through the information to find it. https://github.com/SocketDev/wormhole-crypto

I just came across this tool, and it seems useful.https://wormhole.app/repo: https://github.com/SocketDev/wormhole-crypto

I saw you open-sourced the encryption (there: https://github.com/SocketDev/wormhole-crypto), do you plan to release more over time ? :) like, gaining some momentum before going full open-source ?

> the other uses client-server cryptography pretending to be end-to-end

This is misleading and false. Wormhole.app uses end-to-end encryption. It's factually incorrect to imply otherwise.

To address the larger point – auditing a web app is indeed challenging with current web technologies. In the past, I experimented with a technique using App Cache to permanently cache a web app on first use [1]. Later, that technique was expanded into hyperboot [2] to give users the benefits of explicit, immutable versioning with control over upgrades using the html-version-spec while preserving the simplicity of passing around a URL.

With the impending removal of AppCache from most browsers, the web is currently missing a way to "pin" a site to a specific version and only update it with user consent. Service Workers come close but they mandate a 24 hour maximum cache time before refetching from the server.

We'd love to offer the usability benefits of web apps – you can give someone a URL and they can immediately load the app – with the security of installed apps – doesn't change without warning – once web standards catch up. This is something that I care deeply about.

In the meantime, use magic-wormhole if you prefer a locally-installed command line tool and you're sending files to someone who understands the command line. Use Wormhole.app if you want usable end-to-end encryption, similar to what Firefox Send used to provide.

[1]: https://github.com/feross/infinite-app-cache

[2]: https://github.com/substack/hyperboot