Matrix bridges

[WillemHexspoor]

Inspired by this post, I'm wondering what the security implications are of using Matrix bridges. I assume that the bridge is as secure as the least secure medium involved, so bridges are by default less secure than communication within a single medium.

So the only reason to use a bridge, would be if the other user is not able or willing to use Matrix as medium. Is my reasoning correct?

[Moem]

Sounds reasonable. I use a bridge because many of my contacts are on Signal and not on Matrix.

[AppLee]

Hi @WillemHexspoor

Security is a matter of trust.
You either trust Signal and the "experts" that audited them with your data or you don't.
Same goes for Matrix.
If you self host matrix, than you only have to trust the software.
But if you don't you'll have to trust the hosting entity as well.

With a bridge it adds another party, but if you already trusted it, it doesn't change anything.
But of course the more code you add, the more probable there is an exploit possible.

So your reasoning is not bad. But if you consider using a bridge, that's probably because your contacts are not already using matrix and are probably not interested (at least for some of them).