Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disappearing messages for Signal

whispersystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#51

Post by khedoros1 »

schoen wrote: post #17
majormajor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less- and more-comprehensive versions of dictionaries is a long-standing thing. And you've usually had to pay for all of them—I think it's weirder that you'd expect to have a fully-complete version of something that takes a lot of expert knowledge and time to put together for free.

It's interesting to think about it this way. I do have dictionaries of different sizes that I've paid for, yet somehow the differences between them didn't strike me the same way this marketing campaign does.

With an abridged dictionary, there's no notice when it omits information. The web site's presentation makes it very clear that you're missing out on the full experience, and the tone seems a little like the company's holding the information "hostage". The realities haven't changed, but perception changes along with the presentation.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#52

Post by kuschku »

uph wrote: post #47
cyphar wrote: post #38

Cool feature, though it'd be nice if Signal fixed the message delay and message dropping problem. But Signal uses the proprietary GCM service (because "it's impossible to do message sending correctly, so let's force people to use proprietary software") so they probably can't fix it...

No one is forcing you to use proprietary software. See this comment from moxie https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665520 Using GCM is only a problem for people running a custom Android ROM without Google Play Services. Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private. Google doesn't see any data via gcm, it's just a tickle. If you want push messages, you gotta use a push network. https://twitter.com/whispersystems/stat…

Actually, Moxie has threatened to shut LibreSignal down if they allow LibreSignal users to message normal Signal users, and refused to even discuss alternative solutions.

He also uses the GCM library from Google, which pulls in several analytics libraries into the APK, so "Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private." is objectively false.

(And in addition to that, Moxie even refuses to allow any distribution that doesn’t come with full analytics, which is extremely user hostile.)

> Guess complaining is easier.

No, it’s easier to use XMPP than to fix a system that’s broken by design like Signal.

EDIT: Seriously? Downvotes for criticising publicly documented user-hostile behaviour from Moxie? Fuck this, the discussion culture here really got worse than even Reddit.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#53

Post by MereKatMoves »

subliminalpanda wrote: post #41
MereKatMoves wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love using Signal and will continue to make modest donations, but I would really appreciate an improvement in audio call quality. I still use Silent Circle for calls because it is so tiring to talk when the bitrate is low.

Agreed. WhatsApp calls are near flawless when connections are good, I'm sure WS can reach audio quality parity. I often get disconnected on Signal after 20 minutes or so on a voice call, but I suspect that's due to the other end being behind a VPN with awful latency.

Did FB/WA clarify that they use the OW audio encryption algos, or did they just put the OW 'trophy' on the wall without the actual implementation?

WhatsApp is, I agree, very good quality for what it is, but I would never trust it or FB with anything but social/personal calls. Social Media platforms are for other people to hand over their lives to. Let them subsidize my detachment from their usage, and I thank them for it. I'm sure there will come a day where you can't use WA without a FB account, at which point it is dead to me and my social contacts will be the first to know about it via WA.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#54

Post by mahyarm »

AckSyn wrote: post #50

Now if they would drop the ridiculous requirement of having a phone number and go with usernames and not require access to my contact list like most other services, you could actually be safer and not rely on _their word_ alone.

The app is open source and you could do something like a proxy or similar if you really want to be sure of what get sent from your client. The server is also open source too.

As moxie said, it's about raising the defaults of the world, not about making it secure for the crypto nerd.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#55

Post by mahyarm »

lqdc13 wrote: post #39

I love Signal and this seems to be a stab at Wickr since from what I've heard that is the reason people prefer it to Signal sometimes. Having said that, it has a couple of problems: 1. Images are downsampled without warning. There should be some sort of warning or mini info box for the times when the images are downsampled and there should be information about the changes in resolution. 2. If one uses it as the main…

I know this is apple level 'file a radar', but you should also ping about this in the github issues page.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#56

Post by subliminalpanda »

MereKatMoves wrote: post #53
subliminalpanda wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. WhatsApp calls are near flawless when connections are good, I'm sure WS can reach audio quality parity. I often get disconnected on Signal after 20 minutes or so on a voice call, but I suspect that's due to the other end being behind a VPN with awful latency.

Did FB/WA clarify that they use the OW audio encryption algos, or did they just put the OW 'trophy' on the wall without the actual implementation? WhatsApp is, I agree, very good quality for what it is, but I would never trust it or FB with anything but social/personal calls. Social Media platforms are for other people to hand over their lives to. Let them subsidize my detachment from their usage, and I thank them fo…

Looking at WhatsApps security whitepaper:

"WhatsApp calls are also end-to-end encrypted When a WhatsApp user initiates a call: 1 The initiator builds an encrypted session with the recipient (as outlined in Section Initiating Session Setup), if one does not already exist 2 The initiator generates a random 32-byte SRTp master secret 3 The initiator transmits an encrypted message to the recipient that signals an incoming call, and contains the SRTp master secret 4 If the responder answers the call, a SRTp encrypted call ensues"

From wikipedia:

"Signal voice calls are encrypted with SRTP and the ZRTP key-agreement protocol, which was developed by Phil Zimmermann.[1][57]"

So from where I'm reading they seem to be doing more or less the same thing when it comes to encrypting voice calls.

https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#57

Post by _9vpl »

AckSyn wrote: post #50

Now if they would drop the ridiculous requirement of having a phone number and go with usernames and not require access to my contact list like most other services, you could actually be safer and not rely on _their word_ alone.

With the approach that Signal has taken, it doesn't require you to register a username. The app just registers you with the server as a Signal user using your already unique ID - your phone number. While not the most secure and privacy-protecting method, it allows anyone to just install it and start using it as a secure alternative to plaintext SMS.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#58

Post by woah »

AckSyn wrote: post #50

Now if they would drop the ridiculous requirement of having a phone number and go with usernames and not require access to my contact list like most other services, you could actually be safer and not rely on _their word_ alone.

If you really want to be secure, get a disposable prepaid phone and use its phone number with signal.

Re: Disappearing messages for Signal

#60

Post by laretluval »

AckSyn wrote: post #50

Now if they would drop the ridiculous requirement of having a phone number and go with usernames and not require access to my contact list like most other services, you could actually be safer and not rely on _their word_ alone.

Indeed. It's not just crypto nerds would want to use the service without having to have a smartphone with a phone number.

The phone requirement is beyond ridiculous. How did Signal get the reputation it enjoys in the tech community anyway?

Post reply on HN