Matrix: An open standard for sovereignty

An interview with Patrick Alberts of secure messaging service Element

The Matrix protocol is designed to facilitate collaboration and exchange while preserving national sovereignty. Computing Deutschland spoke with Dr Patrick Alberts. He is product manager and managing director for Germany at Element, the commercial arm of the open Matrix project. With customers such as Gematik, numerous European governments and NATO, the new standard seems to have arrived on the market.

Element is a European start-up specialising in communication software. The founders of Element – Amandine Le Pape from France and Matthew Hodgson from England – are also the inventors of the Matrix protocol. Dr Patrick Alberts is product manager and managing director for Germany at element. He runs the company together with the two founders.

How did Matrix begin and what role does Element play?

Patrick Alberts: Amandine and Matthew developed the concept and implemented the first software to demonstrate the technical feasibility of the protocol. To this end, two key initiatives were launched: Firstly, they founded the Matrix Foundation with the aim of establishing a new standard for secure, decentralised and end-to-end encrypted communication on the internet through an independent organisation. The foundation has its own governance and management and is exclusively dedicated to the further development of the Matrix standard as an open and independent protocol. Membership in the foundation is now broad-based; Gematik is among its members.

Parallel to establishing the Foundation, the founders set up the commercial company Element to develop software solutions based on the Matrix protocol and offer services and packaged products. Most of the software developed is published as open source and used by various players.

How has the project developed in recent years?

The Matrix protocol has triggered dynamic development in the field of communications software. The original idea has given rise to a diverse ecosystem of companies that compete on the basis of the Matrix standard. Over time, this has developed into an independent industry in which various providers offer specialised solutions for different areas of application.

One example of the breadth of Matrix technology is Medio, which offers video-based conferencing software based on Matrix. Nordek, on the other hand, is developing an interactive, collaborative whiteboard that is specifically tailored to the requirements of the healthcare market. In the healthcare sector in particular, increasingly specialised solutions are emerging that leverage the advantages of Matrix technology. Techniker Krankenkasse, for example, has implemented its own Matrix client to meet the specific needs of its insured members. In addition, larger companies such as Deutsche Telekom and IBM are also involved in the development of applications based on Matrix technology, thus contributing to the further dissemination and professionalisation of the standard.

Over the past few years, a market with a wide variety of hybrid forms and constellations has established itself. For example, Barmer health insurance uses our ProServer Event and a Matrix client from Deutsche Telekom, but integrates these components into its own Barmer app, thus creating a customised solution for its policyholders. Techniker Krankenkasse, on the other hand, relies on extensive in-house developments and uses our server in the open source version to ensure maximum flexibility and control. This diversity of technical solutions shows that numerous different constellations have established themselves on the market – ultimately, it is a case of active competition between brands, with innovation and individuality at the forefront.

Tell us about one of your flagship projects, Gematik, an agency that promotes the digitisation of the German healthcare system

Gematik has built the system on the basis of a brand model and does not offer any software solutions itself. It sees itself as a regulator of the market and defines the relevant standards. Consequently, it is not a customer for software providers. Every operator of a TI Messenger [interoperable messenger service for the healthcare sector] is therefore independently responsible for how it designs and implements its technical stack – i.e. client and server. Any party wishing to implement a software solution is responsible for its own selection and integration.

What is special about this project and what role does Matrix play in it?

Gematik defines the telematics standard as a basis and takes into account specific requirements of the healthcare market, for example by extending the Matrix protocol to include telematics-specific aspects. This resulted in the TI Messenger specification, which is approved by Gematik.

This specification is essentially based on a specific Matrix version with telematics-related additions (Timspec). Regardless of whether proprietary developments or existing solutions are used, each component must first be approved by Gematik. This means that each provider must check which components can be reused as open source, which components should be licensed – for example, from companies such as Element – and which parts should be developed in-house.

Let's return to Matrix. Why was it necessary to introduce another protocol to the market?

The story of how Matthew and Amandine started their company begins with their main motivation: the fragmentation of digital communication due to numerous messenger systems that are isolated from one another. They realised that common communication platforms such as Teams, WhatsApp and Signal operate as closed systems that do not allow interaction across platform boundaries. This silo situation is reminiscent of the early days of the internet, when service providers such as America Online (AOL), CompuServe and T-Online created their own isolated environments. The breakthrough of the internet only came with the introduction of common standards such as HTML and HTTP, which enabled uniform and cross-platform communication.

The messaging sector is still highly fragmented. Many users are tied to specific systems and cannot leave them without encountering compatibility issues. This is exactly where Matrix comes in: it offers an open standard that allows different providers and applications to be made interoperable – regardless of which software is used on the user side. For example, a doctor can use a different solution than a pharmacy or health insurance company, and yet secure, seamless exchange is still possible – with end-to-end encryption.

What is special about Matrix?

Matrix differs fundamentally from proprietary systems in that users have the freedom to choose their service provider individually without losing access to other communication partners. Email serves as a clear example: regardless of the provider chosen, all users can be reached via uniform standards. In contrast, there has been no comparable openness in the field of messaging to date.

Another key aspect is decentralisation: with email, any organisation or private individual can operate their own server and thus act independently. Matrix follows the same principle and deliberately avoids centralised structures, which are common in many other messaging services. This means that every user or provider retains full control over their data and is not dependent on a single company.

This independence is a decisive advantage, especially in the sensitive area of health data. In summary, it can be said that the Matrix standard represents a fundamental alternative to existing messaging solutions thanks to its interoperability, freedom of choice of provider and complete decentralisation, and is particularly recommended for areas with high requirements for data protection and independence.

How are users and data protected?

Each participant within the Matrix Federation has a unique Matrix ID, which is similar in structure and function to an email address. This Matrix ID consists of an individual component and a domain name – comparable to the principle of email communication: without knowing the email address, it is not possible to make contact. However, once the address is available, routing can be implemented according to the domain, as explained above.

A key difference between using a unique ID in Matrix and an email address is that a cryptographic identity is always linked to the ID. The protocol ensures that the authenticity of the communication partners can be verified at any time, thus ruling out identity theft. For example, an email may appear to come from one person but was actually sent by another – this is not possible with Matrix, as each ID is unique and cryptographically verifiable.

End users have full control over their cryptographic identity. Even the server operator has no way of duplicating, falsifying or imitating this identity. This is a fundamental aspect of end-to-end encryption, whose security mechanisms are only effective if the identities of users are also protected throughout. Otherwise, someone could gain unauthorised access and intercept messages; with Matrix, however, this is impossible.

Have additional measures been implemented, e.g. special measures to protect particularly sensitive information?

Essentially, this is a zero-trust model for the server, which makes the technical implementation comparatively demanding and complex. The effect is that a malicious server operator attempting to infiltrate a user into a communication can be automatically detected by the protocol: the new participant would appear openly visible in the communication. Invisible participation is impossible.

If an attacker attempts to take over an existing participant, it would appear as if the legitimate participant had suddenly added a new device. However, all devices must always be cryptographically verified. An untrustworthy device would therefore be immediately recognisable in the communication. The protocol already contains integrated security mechanisms that prevent so-called man-in-the-middle attacks.

How does this work with TI Messenger? How can a doctor contact a patient if there is no central address directory?

With TI Messenger, the individual part is linked to the user's health insurance number, while the domain name refers to the respective health insurance company. Using the insurance card, a doctor can calculate the corresponding Matrix ID with the help of an easy-to-use algorithm and thus send messages to the insured person. This procedure offers a straightforward solution for addressing within the system. If, on the other hand, you are outside Gematik within the open federation, the address must be explicitly known.

In order to achieve global standardisation of communication – comparable to the standard for emails – both Microsoft Teams and Zoom would need to be based on the Matrix protocol. Won’t Matrix simply be another silo?

The definition of a silo is not always clear. In my view, a silo is a proprietary system that is controlled by its owner and does not allow use by third parties. An example of this would be if Zoom were to open up to other platforms such as Teams, WhatsApp or Signal. This is precisely why the European Commission introduced the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The aim was to oblige at least market-dominating providers to open up.

To my knowledge, despite the DMA, no alternative messenger has yet been successfully integrated with WhatsApp. For me, the essential characteristic of a silo is that it remains closed and external parties are denied access, even if they want it. Matrix is the opposite: open participation is possible here, and anyone interested can use the system. In addition, essential components of the software are available as open source, which significantly lowers the barrier to entry.

Assuming we pursue the goal of establishing a uniform standard – similar to what has been achieved with email or the internet – then the ideal would be for all systems to be based on the Matrix protocol. In your opinion, how could such a development become a reality? What approaches do you see to persuade providers such as Microsoft or Meta to open up to this, either through full implementation of the standard or at least through interoperability with it?

In my opinion, existing silo and proprietary providers have little interest in opening up their systems. Once a company has established its own large network, the focus is usually on expanding its own network effect and shielding its external boundaries as much as possible to avoid losses. There are currently no significant efforts in the market to open up further than is absolutely necessary for other providers. Even a regulatory-enforced opening, as prescribed by the DMA, has not yet brought about any fundamental changes. In practice, such developments typically occur from the bottom up, as users increasingly value independence and no longer want to transfer their data to foreign servers.

The desire for control and end-to-end encrypted, secure communication is driving strong momentum in Europe towards digital sovereignty. Within Europe, a significant movement towards open standards such as Matrix can already be observed. For example, the Centre for Digital Sovereignty in Germany relies on Matrix, as do the BundesMessenger for public administration and the BwMessenger for the German Armed Forces; the French government uses Tchap, the Luxembourg government uses Luxchat – all based on Matrix.

This approach helps to ensure that communication in the European context remains interoperable across borders without individual countries having to relinquish their autonomy. Each participant remains decentralised and independent. The strength of a common standard lies in the fact that it facilitates cooperation and exchange while preserving national sovereignty.

How can a standard such as Matrix contribute to public safety or data protection?

Ensuring a reliable communications infrastructure is an increasingly important challenge for both public authorities and the private sector. A reliable communications infrastructure acts as an effective line of defence. In an international context – for example, in scientific cooperation with research partners from abroad or in globally active companies – the question arises as to how international communication channels can be effectively secured. When exchanging information with researchers from other countries, for example, there is a risk of scientific espionage. Manufacturing companies must protect their supply chains to prevent competitors from abroad from gaining unauthorised access to sensitive information. This is particularly true for suppliers from countries such as China. Securing the supply chain is therefore a key additional challenge. These aspects are particularly important in the context of KRITIS and NIS-2.

This raises the question of how companies can position themselves securely and resiliently. Why is a decentralised communications infrastructure important for resilience? Communication failures with employees quickly lead to limited capacity to act in many companies and public authorities, making problem solving considerably more difficult. This question opens up a significant and practical dimension of business continuity management. Are emergency plans in place? For example, what should be done if the central Microsoft server fails – an incident that can occur occasionally? Or how can operations be maintained in the event of a major crisis? In such cases, several customers rely on hot standby systems that run on their own hardware independently of cloud services. There are also organisations that deliberately operate their decentralised systems on their own premises. This allows them to remain operational even when external connections or data centres are no longer available – provided that the internal power supply is secured. Such scenarios illustrate the multitude of considerations and possibilities that companies should take into account in the context of crisis preparedness and resilience.

This article first appeared in German on Computing’s sister site Computing Deutschland