The codebase has a Google Cloud Storage backend? Synonym's production configuration (which backend they're actually running) is not public from what I can tell.
The entire storage configuration in google_bucket_config.rs (the file that controls where your data lives) is this:
rustlet builder = opendal::services::Gcs::default()
.bucket(&self.bucket_name)
.credential(&credential);
Bucket name. Credential. That's it. So user data goes to a Google Cloud Storage bucket that Synonym owns and controls?
A sovereignty protocol that stores your data on Google Cloud is kind of hilarious at first glance.
npub13ndpm2hm9hud4azsq5euhf5mv3d05r90wymwxsd7rdn29609hhvqp60svh am I wrong here? Just looking for clarity.
GitHub
pubky-core/pubky-homeserver/src/data_directory/storage_config/google_bucket_config.rs at main · pubky/pubky-core
An open protocol for per-public-key backends for censorship resistant web applications. - pubky/pubky-core
The code is all open source and can be run or forked by anyone.
App products have to follow laws, if you find something in our ToS that is beyond the minumum boilerplate required, please specify that part and I will check whethe removing it is actually possible.
You think i give a fuck about ToS or any compliance personally? No. But businesses must follow laws, which is why we build the stuff we build.
Stop being a hypocrite to your own values and learn something new.
Every service has terms.
View quoted note →
Nostr doesn't have a session token layer to compromise. Your key signs events directly, via NIP-07 extensions or NIP-46 bunkers (how you *should be* using nostr) that never expose it to apps at all. Pubky adds a session delegation layer to protect the master key (a reasonable idea) but then stored those session tokens unencrypted. The mitigation introduces the vulnerability.

