WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

Post by aw3c2 » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:04 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #34

moxie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to have replaced TLS/SSL between client and server with "Noise Pipes". WhatsApp was already using a custom protocol instead of TLS. We worked with them to transition over to Noise Pipes, which has some advantages over what they were doing before. Also, we've renamed Axolotl to Signal Protocol: https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-inside-and-out/

It is killing me that you didn't rename Signal to Axolotl.

Post by ianmiers » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

pilif wrote: post #118

hannob wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From that perspective, I'm still inclined to trust apple's iMessage a bit more especially after recent events. I'm surprised by this statement. After recent events I'd say the imessage protocoll is a weird ad-hoc construction that failed to follow basic modern crypto constructions like authenticated encryption and forward secrecy. I don't expect anything alike from the signal protocol.

The one thing iMessage and WhatsApp have in common is that they both end-to-end encrypt without giving the user control over the keys being used. So ignoring actual protocol and implementation flaws (I agree with you that WhisperSystems will probably be ahead of Apple there), both rely on the key management being done in a thrustworthy manner. And this is where I trust Apple more than Facebook, especially in light of…

Post by zanny » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

jamesdwilson wrote: post #44

mike_hearn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the articles. It already says that those are encrypted, as well as voice calls. Apparently once everyone is upgraded, nothing will be unencrypted. Their white paper also describes the protocols used in quite a lot of detail.

no proof without open source

Post by pilif » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

ianmiers wrote: post #133

pilif wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one thing iMessage and WhatsApp have in common is that they both end-to-end encrypt without giving the user control over the keys being used. So ignoring actual protocol and implementation flaws (I agree with you that WhisperSystems will probably be ahead of Apple there), both rely on the key management being done in a thrustworthy manner. And this is where I trust Apple more than Facebook, especially in light of…

WhatsApp allows you to verify keys. Apple doesn't. This makes a pretty big difference. Also, iMessage's crypto protocol is cryptographically broken. It's been patched together in ways that prevent the obvious attack, but don't actually fix the underlying issue. Doing so involves replacing the protocol. In the mean time, those patches are not fool proof and someone may get around them.

Post by slasaus » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:12 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #132

slasaus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Ricochet†, it only does synchronous communication but it does solve the problem of leaking meta-data. All the other clients except Pond leak meta-data. † https://ricochet.im/

Ricochet appears to rely on Tor's encryption, with an additional custom RSA handshake. That's two added levels of "nope" for me, but other people might feel differently.