Idea: Distributed Tweet exfiltration #931

New issue

Open

opened 2023-07-10 13:25:54 -04:00 by 12joan · 2 comments

12joan commented

2023-07-10 13:25:54 -04:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Not my idea, but a continuation of this discussion to keep the main issue thread clear.

@zedeus Feel free to close this issue if discussion about this isn't welcome on Nitter's GitHub; we can always move it somewhere else. 🙂

Not my idea, but a continuation of [this discussion](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/919#issuecomment-1629393064) to keep the main issue thread clear. @zedeus Feel free to close this issue if discussion about this isn't welcome on Nitter's GitHub; we can always move it somewhere else. 🙂

👍 1

saqib-ahmed commented

2023-07-11 04:01:55 -04:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Just to clarify about the Chrome extension I shared to send tweets to the server: we are not using any cryptographic (or otherwise) verification of the data because it is being used by an in-house team of data entry operators. We also have authentication for all the endpoints and all the guys using the extension have their own credentials. We are not bothered with the verification because only trusted people use the extension.

👍 1

12joan commented

2023-07-11 04:08:43 -04:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Hope that clears up any confusion. 🙂

Thanks, @saqib-ahmed. We understand that the extension you're using just sends Tweets to a server with no need for cryptography. The discussion on cryptographic methods of validating Tweets arose in response to ["point 2"](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/919#issuecomment-1628432813) (how to avoid spam from untrusted data collectors) and referred to a [different extension](https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/919#issuecomment-1629144301). Hope that clears up any confusion. 🙂

👍 1

This discussion has been locked. Commenting is limited to contributors.