I like how the screenshot on the main page shows "Not Secure" for the browser window with web.rustdesk.com. This one detail makes me sceptical of the whole product (:
They do clearly state that the Web component is in beta (realistically alpha or dev), so it's probably fine to be not secure during QA
I disagree. It means that security is an afterthought which will be "added" later to the product to check the "secure" checkbox.
Not necessarily. You can design your system's security and then implement your features first. A good example would be "we know we need TLS, let's get a non TLS version up first and then add it before release".
Pretty typical imo
I'd say it pretty typical prequel to "we intended to implement TLS, but then we forgot/were busy/attacked by medusas/.../had different prioritises"
Sure, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with incremental security.
I guess we won't agree on this. In my experience this is the sort of "good programmers don't do mistake X". Though technically possible, unreliable in reality.
The problem is they have released it. Even if it’s considered a “pre-release” in versioning terms, it’s still been released to the public in actual terms. And given the nature of this software, it’s not unreasonable for people to expect a base level of security.
In the days before free SSL certificates I might have agreed with you. But these days I’d expect even dev environments to be secured.