# Require Perfect Forward Secrecy for Real-Time Communications

**URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/require-perfect-forward-secrecy-for-real-time-communications/18944
**Category:** Site Development
**Tags:** invalid
**Created:** 2024-06-17T12:18:26Z
**Posts:** 8

## Post 1 by @anon48875053 — 2024-06-17T12:18:26Z

This should be a minimum requirement, along with “Uses E2EE for all messages by default.”

---

## Post 2 by @anon80779245 — 2024-06-17T12:20:50Z

Not sure it make sense for large group chats, but it does for 1 to 1 chats

---

## Post 3 by @jonah — 2024-06-17T12:44:38Z

This was previously discussed and resolved in Feb 2023:

> [@IM/RTC: Perfect Forward Secrecy Requirement](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/im-rtc-perfect-forward-secrecy-requirement/11840):
>
> We’re [currently considering](https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/pull/1994) a change to our instant messenger criteria which would require all messengers to support Perfect Forward Secrecy. This would disqualify Session of course, which notoriously removed support for PFS in a crypto change despite initially supporting it while their product was based on Signal’s crypto. Generally speaking, the team is okay with this change. This would also disqualify Matrix. While Megolm theoretically supports PFS, [it is not mandatory](https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/blob/master/docs/megolm.md#partial-forward-secrecy) and in fact is not us…

I’m going to mark as #rejected because this new discussion doesn’t reference or address any of the previous points in the discussion linked above.

If you read through and want to counter any specific points there then we can revisit it here. I just think the final decision we made at the time was a pretty well-reasoned one.

---

## Post 4 by @jonah — 2024-06-17T12:46:13Z

The TL;DR is that I think Matrix is a unique product that still isn’t fully replaceable by any alternative messengers at the moment.

---

## Post 5 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-06-17T12:46:36Z

The difference is that now that there are more alternatives there is no need for recommending those who don’t. I believe that is still the only reason it was upheld.

---

## Post 6 by @ph00lt0 — 2024-06-17T12:47:46Z

Fair on matrix I guess to some extend , I just came from the session discussion… It’s complex. I do feel that in the long run this won’t say up like this. Unless matrix improves their protocol.

---

## Post 7 by @anon48875053 — 2024-06-17T13:15:16Z

Matrix is great for communities, but not so much for 1:1 chats.

I think we could have a separate section for things like Matrix and maybe something like revolt.chat, which are great for communities but aren’t recommended for 1:1 chats.

---

## Post 8 by @jonah — 2024-06-17T13:28:06Z

That is exactly what the post I linked talked about though.

---

## Post 9 by @redoomed1 — 2025-05-10T12:51:24Z

Duplicate of the thread Jonah linked in the post marked as solution