Weird that some categories would require and audit and some won’t… how does that make any sense?
A warning should certainly be added. It’s much more dangerous to have people writing unreviewed crypto…
I have opened a PR for the inclusion of Notesnook: Add Notesnook by thecodrr · Pull Request #2176 · privacyguides/privacyguides.org · GitHub
2 Likes
The reason is because if we required an audit for some categories, we’d literally have no recommendations, because nobody has one. It is becoming less of an issue though, so that’s a good thing.
5 Likes
Note that if you publish a Notesnook note (aka Monograph) , it will be not be end-to-end encrypted by default unless you manually set a password.
This is because Notesnook’s Monograph links do not have any encryption secret that is used to decrypt notes on the recipients’ sides to be included in the share URL behind the # (hash) as the browser will not send anything after the # remotely to the server
This kind of “key in the link” feature is however present in many Privacy Guides recommend products that have secure link sharing: Proton Drive, Send/FFSend, or Bitwarden’s Send
Not sure why you guys are rushing putting a product in recommendation without reviewing all the features.
Below is a screenshot in Notesnook Discord:
3 Likes
ooh actually did not know that, but would be cool if they add support for this indeed. I assumed it was already this way. Bad assumption, tx for heads up.
Is company being registered in privacy and security invasive nation has any impact when the tool is offering E2E?