We can do better than Signal • Hacker News Board

Re: We can do better than Signal

#171

Post by hiq » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

Evidlo wrote: post #64

bronco21016 wrote: post #18

The issues highlighted by the author, about Signal, and indeed nearly any messenger app or platform, are societal issues that we keep trying to fix with technology. There are promising solutions to decentralizing and anonymizing but there remain to be any real tech solutions to the ultimate de-platforming issue. Signal is at risk of having their hosting or connection removed. What prevents the same thing from happeni…

> What prevents the same thing from happening to decentralized services? Nothing, but at least knocking a server offline doesn't bring down the whole network, which is indeed "better than Signal" on this front.

I don't think it's clear that a federated service has better chances against censorship.

Take any federated service: if you ban the servers accounting for 90% of users, you end up in a situation mostly similar to censoring Signal, you need to migrate servers and accounts somehow. This should be easier for a centralized service (Signal) since they control everything. Banning servers that belong to n entities where n > 1 might be a bit more of a hurdle, but if n P2P on Matrix has been mentioned, and might be more resistant to censorship, but figuring out the UX in this case is pretty much an open problem (e.g. resetting your "address" whenever your reset your main device and lose your data is not acceptable).

Also good to remember regarding centralized services: The Pirate Bay is still up and running. Will there be more pressure on Signal to close than The Pirate Bay?

Re: We can do better than Signal

#172

Post by markvdb » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

Arathorn wrote: post #136

tombert wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience with Matrix/Element. I was using the desktop app to chat with a friend, and while we were able to get some end-to-end encryption working, it was a huge pain the butt, and if two software engineers struggled this much to get the damn thing working, there's no way in hell that I'm convincing my parents to use it. To me, we have to accept the incremental wins where we can get them; getting my…

Speaking as project lead for Matrix (and Element), I'm trying to understand the mixed feedback we've had this week, and somehow channel all the negativity into improving things. While some folks are clearly using it successfully and seem to like it, another bunch of people say "it was a huge pain in the butt to get E2EE working, and if it two software engineers struggled this much..." etc. When did this E2EE failure…

Hi!

I'd like to share something I consider a success story.

I'm using matrix successfully with my construction contractor and his helper. They've been working on a building site 2000km away for months. He and his helper have been uploading pics and video every day. They also use the chat now and then. I've shared pdf documents with them too.

Mind you, they were used to Whatsapp, so I had to nudge them into downloading yet another app and explain. As their client, I had the necessary leverage, so they did install Element (well, riot at the time). These are people who don't speak a word of English, from a remote countryside village, and totally unfamiliar with computery stuff, and they managed.

Thank you for helping to make that possible!

Re: We can do better than Signal

#173

Post by the__alchemist » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

Arathorn wrote: post #136

tombert wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience with Matrix/Element. I was using the desktop app to chat with a friend, and while we were able to get some end-to-end encryption working, it was a huge pain the butt, and if two software engineers struggled this much to get the damn thing working, there's no way in hell that I'm convincing my parents to use it. To me, we have to accept the incremental wins where we can get them; getting my…

Speaking as project lead for Matrix (and Element), I'm trying to understand the mixed feedback we've had this week, and somehow channel all the negativity into improving things. While some folks are clearly using it successfully and seem to like it, another bunch of people say "it was a huge pain in the butt to get E2EE working, and if it two software engineers struggled this much..." etc. When did this E2EE failure…

This is not in the same vein as what you're looking for. (I haven't tried user-user encryption), but the verification popups are annoying.

- I don't want popups or notifications, but whenever I use it, I'm greeted with one.

- Once I click "Verify", it's not clear how to proceed. It indicates to use a mobile phone etc with the app installed to verify. There are two clickable things: A big red "Skip" that appears to be the default button: This takes you back. A green hyperlink showing "Use recovery key or passphrase". Is this the "continue with verification and making the popup go away" button? It then asks for a passphrase, which I can only pass because it's stored in Firefox. What does this have to do with phone? Is the phone picture supposed to be clickable?

- Once I get past this, it still show a popup every time I open the page; this time, it asks me to review where I've logged in.

- Once I click review, I'm sent to a "Welcome to Element" page. The popup shows again next time I refresh or open the page.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#174

Post by SAI_Peregrinus » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

xrisk wrote: post #32

marcinzm wrote: post #8

I'm confused about this piece. If there's true E2E encryption (verified by open source client code and review of released binaries) then why does it matter if the server code is backdoored or not? The whole point of E2E is that you don't need to care about the server being able to ever see the text of your messages because it never can.

Copy pasting my comment: Consider this paragraph from the Signal protocol > ...For example, they may compare public key fingerprints manually, or by scanning a QR code. Methods for doing this are outside the scope of this document. > If authentication is not performed, the parties receive no cryptographic guarantee as to who they are communicating with . Nobody I know in practice does this authentication. If an activ…

Matrix has the same problem. It requires out-of-band communication to trust the E2E encryption.

Indeed, EVERY decentralized communications system will have this problem. There's no way to establish trust over a compromised channel without either a centralized pre-trusted agent (like the CA system in TLS) or an out-of-band secure channel (like Signal, Matrix, PGP, etc).

Re: We can do better than Signal

#175

Post by EugeneOZ » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

That single fact that I have to share my phone number to everyone (I want to chat with) in Signal is enough for me to don't even think about installing it.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#176

Post by hiq » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

solstice wrote: post #54

walrus01 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my understanding that the main concern about a compromised Signal server is that metadata of which phone numbers are registered as user IDs could be compromised. Basically the same threat model the Signal people themselves address when talking about court orders and subpoeanas received by their corporation for "customer" data.

That's not true afaik. Signal days that they don't store phone numbers beyond the initial setup/verification. See here: > Does Signal send my number to my contacts? Signal does not send your phone number to anyone unless you send them a message or make a call to them. The Signal service does not have any knowledge of your contacts. Data is all owned by your phone. Registration notifications are never transmitted by a…

Some of these features are using SGX, which is why people dismiss them. Using SGX is still better than nothing, and there's no better alternative given the simplicity goals of Signal (e.g. selecting manually which of your contacts has Signal is not an option).

Re: We can do better than Signal

#177

Post by xiphias2 » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

bilal4hmed wrote: post #115

xiphias2 wrote: post #107

Signal, telegram and matrix (or at least 1 of the 3) should work on cross-app E2E communication. Instead of creating a new protocol, why not just have a competition between clients using the current protocols?

Matrix has bridges for Telegram and Signal Matrix tried with Signal but it didnt yield anything https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom

As long as Signal is really open source, I don't see why Matrix couldn't just add connecting to signal servers in the client itself instead of creating bridges or a common protocol. The only thing Moxie can do is to make Signal closed source, or constantly break the signal protocol on purpose and force everybody to upgrade their signal and telegram apps.

Also I tried Matrix, and it started asking questions from me instead of showing my friend list, so it already failed being a competitor to WhatsApp. The only question it should ask is to get permission to access my contact list.

I know that interopability is very hard to do, and having multiple clients in 1 app is boring work (especially with features like voice and video calling), but it would be amazing.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#178

Post by Loic » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

Arathorn wrote: post #136

tombert wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience with Matrix/Element. I was using the desktop app to chat with a friend, and while we were able to get some end-to-end encryption working, it was a huge pain the butt, and if two software engineers struggled this much to get the damn thing working, there's no way in hell that I'm convincing my parents to use it. To me, we have to accept the incremental wins where we can get them; getting my…

Speaking as project lead for Matrix (and Element), I'm trying to understand the mixed feedback we've had this week, and somehow channel all the negativity into improving things. While some folks are clearly using it successfully and seem to like it, another bunch of people say "it was a huge pain in the butt to get E2EE working, and if it two software engineers struggled this much..." etc. When did this E2EE failure…

OOT: Haters are going to hate anyway. Thank you for the incredible work you do with Matrix and the open ecosystem it fosters.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#179

Post by perardi » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

BillyTheKing wrote: post #52

Ericson2314 wrote: post #13

As I wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795575 - WhatsApp: Oh wait, SMS etc. is completely insecure - Signal: Oh wait, WhatsApp is structurally unable to be a force for privacy - Matrix: Oh wait, even benevolent centralization is an unnecessary risk It's not that worse is better, but the general public's imagination can only grow so fast. We need to coax people along. As such, I do think all 3 serve a pu…

In fairness, I think WhatsApp's value proposition is and was as little more than 'just' oh wait, sms etc. is completely insecure. I don't think the majority really cared about that (especially since end-to-end encryption was a later addition). I think most people primarily started using WhatsApp because a) it was (is) free b) cross-platform c) worked very reliably

Most people profoundly do not understand or care about the vagaries of how their messaging is encrypted.

They do care about SMS fees, especially across international borders.

They do care about sending group texts between Android and iOS and not having things go slowly haywire as messages don’t come across.

They do care about sending messages over wifi if they’re somewhere without a cell signal. (OK, bit of a Canadian thing, but the cottage has wifi and no cell signal.)

Re: We can do better than Signal

#180

Post by skinkestek » Sun, Jan 17, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

Caligatio wrote: post #29

I feel like Signal is held to a ridiculously high bar when it comes to anything. Is it perfect? No. But come on now; I see other threads on HN where people are debating/bashing their use of Intel SGX, really? Assuming you trust the client builds (or use a verified build) and verify the public key, all of these arguments go out the window with the exception of exposing your phone number. This situation seems like a pr…

> I feel like Signal is held to a ridiculously high bar when it comes to anything.

Maybe I can help:

I feel Signal is doing a lot right and if I need to send a message right now and be 99.999% sure nobody except the recipient can read it, Signal is my choice.

My criticism is mainly directed not at Signal, but at the people trying to promote Signal by trying to trash every other messaging technology.

The reason is that until Signal solves:

- backups

- stable API available for everyone (I don't think they have one)

- bots (I mean a bot API for creating bots)

- large groups

- a number of ux issues

- and allow armed forces and other groups that need it to run their own servers

... until then there will be room for other messaging solutions.

I'll take it a step further:

- if you would be happy to stuff it in a physical envelope

- or send it by email

- and you don't hold a grudge against Facebook or are willing to live with the thought of FB knowing who you talk to and when

then you can safely send it by any messaging service.

Fighting about which just keeps people using sms or email, both trivially interceptable by a number of parties.

TLDR:

1. Signal is fine, excellent AFAIK

2. there's room for other messaging services as well

3. one doesn't make Signal better by trying to trash other messaging solutions