Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you consider NordVPN? I like the fact that I get to login from anywhere in the world. My default choice is Sweden since they have the most lax copyright laws in the world, so subpoenaing any Swedish server gonna be tough. They also offered me unavoidable discount.
NordVPN may have good intentions but they were hacked. https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was-ha...
Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
221–230 of 241 posts
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 500 million active users > A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going. Is it just me or does order of $1 per user sound like a lot?
$1 per user/year sounds about right. I use Telegram more than any other chat app. People send lots of media (and even large files) and Telegram archives them forever. One group Telegram I’m in is 6 years old and has 500+ VIDEOS (and 10,000s of images) permanently archived in it. I’d estimate I cost over $10/yr to telegram.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#223If you don't want to trust anyone but to verify instead, consider running Matrix with your own server. In this case you still can talk to anyone else on Matrix, because it' federated.
I'm not familiar enough with Matrix, but I'm curious about how/if it can protect against malicious federated server operators? Does that just boil down to needing to trust they are not running modified code?
Now, concerning the other servers, it may be a problem, just like Gmail is a problem for everyone running their own email server. However, it's a much smaller problem and at least theoretically everyone who cares can escape the walled garden.
You can create a server for all your friends and you will always know exactly which information is shared with others and which isn't.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#224> I'm just curious how we trust companies such as Signal, Telegram, Mozilla, that claim they don't store and sell our data? These are three very different companies with very different security processes and trust profiles. In the case of Signal: if you trust that the source code they distribute is the same as the app available in the Play Store, then it's pretty easy to verify that the messaging data is end-to-end e…
The point is that even if Signal permanently stored everything you ever sent them, then they wouldn't be able to read it.
- You can build the client yourself per Signal's reproducible builds, so actually, they could not ship a different app to the published source without it being immediately detectable
- You can validate the source code does not send any unencrypted data to Signal
- You can validate that your private keys used for encryption are stored locally on the device and not transmitted to Signal
Theoretically, anyone who has the corresponding private key could decrypt the message. So if your contact uses an unofficial client which does share their private key with a third party, then that third party could unencrypt that message, however by that point, the app creator has compromised the device anyway, and could do something as naive as take screenshots of all of the messages in the background after Signal has done the work of ensuring the secure transmission of the message.
Note, I haven't actually done all that, because I do trust Signal. But I could if I wanted to. And obviously, this assumes that all the cryptographic standards used in Signal are still unbroken - but if they were, then you're screwed either way.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#225Signal: operations that involve sending your contacts (like contact discovery) use a pattern Signal invented where the client can validate the software running on the server. The server runs inside the SGX secure enclave. Before your client sends any data, it performs remote attestation on the running server code to ensure it matches the published open source code. See the full explanation at https://signal.org/blog/…
Keep in mind that SGX is not as secure as advertised[1][2]. Also whole security dangles on Intel to be trusted to not give its private keys to anyone. Which is a big ask for any company. NSA/CIA likely can get those keys legally via FISA court order or illegaly via hacking and/or insider. [1] - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/hacke... [2] - https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/10/intel_patches_s…
The answer is that signal includes an industry-leading attestation process using CPU security features. If the CPU manufacturer is compromised that would compromise anything running on it, including attestation. But that's not a flaw in Signal's implementation, and it is out of scope of the question.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#226Signal: operations that involve sending your contacts (like contact discovery) use a pattern Signal invented where the client can validate the software running on the server. The server runs inside the SGX secure enclave. Before your client sends any data, it performs remote attestation on the running server code to ensure it matches the published open source code. See the full explanation at https://signal.org/blog/…
Keep in mind that SGX is not as secure as advertised[1][2]. Also whole security dangles on Intel to be trusted to not give its private keys to anyone. Which is a big ask for any company. NSA/CIA likely can get those keys legally via FISA court order or illegaly via hacking and/or insider. [1] - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/hacke... [2] - https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/10/intel_patches_s…
The answer is that signal includes an industry-leading attestation process using CPU security features.
It's true that if the CPU manufacturer is compromised that would compromise anything running on it, including attestation. But that's not really to do with Signal's implementation, and it is out of scope of the question.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get how it might be done in theory but real life is complicated. Has anyone attempted to do this? This is mentioned elsewhere, but the answer is: reproducible builds. You can take the Signal client source (which is available on Github), build an APK or whatnot yourself, then get the SHA256 hash or whatever and compare that to the artifact downloaded from the app store and validate that it's the same. Has anyone d…
The signatures on app store apks mean that doesn't work. You can though, decompile both your version and the app store version and compare them that way.
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#228Telegram stores all data on own servers. Just try the following trick: - in a private Browser window open web.telegram.org - enter your phone number, receive the code - turn on flight mode on your phone - now enter the identification code in your browser - access your whole chat history while your smartphone can definitely not act as a source Even WhatsApp is better in this regard. Article in German: https://www.heis…
What's this supposed to prove?
Re: Ask HN: How do we know Signal or Telegram don't store our data on their servers?
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, sure. But what do you propose? It's still a much better situation than what we have with Whatsapp. Is there something that the Signal Foundation could do to alleviate that concern you have? There's no technical solution in any technology for preventing the other side being compromised, as far as I can see.
Matrix since you can self-host and have control while still being able to communicate to other people on it through federation
>> There's no technical solution in any technology for preventing the other side being compromised, as far as I can see.
I don't know Matrix, but I can guarantee that it doesn't solve the problem of a compromised client obtaining the messages willingly sent to it.