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

Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

indiatoday.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#161

Post by 7a1c9427 »

uoaei wrote: post #158
7a1c9427 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is a very charitable assumption about the GP claim. The linked article describes a very specific implementation vulnerability around handling of offline messages that would appear to be routed in user experience being ranked higher than operational security by WhatsApp (understandably). In this case it also does notify the user once they are online, and the original phone is logged out alerting the compr…

> I think that is a very charitable assumption about the GP claim. The linked article describes a very specific implementation vulnerability around handling of offline messages that would appear to be routed in user experience being ranked higher than operational security by WhatsApp (understandably). Both points (security vulnerability and user experience prioritization) can be true simultaneously. This is the root…

This is true. But I would suggest your operational security has bigger issues than this potential vulnerability if you are using WhatsApp.

Regardless - you still haven't given a source for you original claim. "not deserving benefit of the doubt" does not qualify. If the linked article is in fact you source then in the future please do not exaggerate such claims as you have done. I would have expected a claim from the article to read (along with a link to the source!):

> WhatsApp have modified the protocol slightly auspiciously for user experience but this allows a third party attacker to intercept messages sent offline only alerting the sender after they have been disclosed.

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#162

Post by suifbwish »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #61

How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...

To be fair, a billionaire hardly has to worry about social NORMs

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#163

Post by boogies »

mFixman wrote: post #65
nine_k wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody should have a shutter over the camera, just to protect from blunders and misclicks. No matter how you trust your software, some malware may want to activate it, especially at a high-value target like Zuckerberg (or Bezos, or Nadella, etc). Alas, microphones are not as easy to deactivate.

Covering a camera always seemed like unjustified paranoia for me. If someone can access my camera and spy my unkept beard, why won't they also be able to access my keyboard and spy my main email account password?

Why not cover your camera? Some MacBooks are so delicate that Apple itself warns stickers can break them IIRC¹, but to me that’s just one more great reason never to buy a MacBook. For other cameras, if someone can look into my windows, they can also watch a lock-picking video on YouTube and IIRC learn that something like ≥70% of American homes have locks from the same 1–2 brands, and break in easily, but I still close curtains, because why not?

¹(Edit) You can't make this stuff up: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#164

Post by ncmncm »

avh02 wrote: post #16
ncmncm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is probably aware that other Facebook employees can crack into Whatsapp traffic at will. It might be unwise to be caught doing it to his account; and probably best to make it look like it was somebody else doing it.

We're going to need a citation for this claim

Is that a threat? Who is "we"?

Obviously I have no way to show you Facebook proprietary source code, but equally obviously Facebook can make their code do anything they like, including MITMing on an account-by-account basis.

That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization.

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#165

Post by avh02 »

ncmncm wrote: post #164
avh02 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to need a citation for this claim

Is that a threat? Who is "we"? Obviously I have no way to show you Facebook proprietary source code, but equally obviously Facebook can make their code do anything they like, including MITMing on an account-by-account basis. That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization.

> Is that a threat? Who is "we"?

Nope, just an expectation that sweeping claims get backed up either by reasoning (like you just did) or a source

As for your reasoning vs your claim: you had made it seem like there was some well-known flaw or tool within FB to disable/intercept E2E. Or that we should expect an E2E-disabler functionality already exists.

I'm no FB developer, but I doubt it's as simple as one or two rogue developers adding in an "intercept mark's messages" functionality.

> That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization.

Fair enough, but FB/whatsapp messengers are probably some of the most scrutinized by third parties, as well as developers who would sooner or later blow the whistle (would hope so anyway). I would not take "mark is on signal so his messengers suck" to be a reasonable conclusion - and I'm not even FB's biggest fan.

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#166

Post by ncmncm »

avh02 wrote: post #165
ncmncm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a threat? Who is "we"? Obviously I have no way to show you Facebook proprietary source code, but equally obviously Facebook can make their code do anything they like, including MITMing on an account-by-account basis. That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization.

> Is that a threat? Who is "we"? Nope, just an expectation that sweeping claims get backed up either by reasoning (like you just did) or a source As for your reasoning vs your claim: you had made it seem like there was some well-known flaw or tool within FB to disable/intercept E2E. Or that we should expect an E2E-disabler functionality already exists. I'm no FB developer, but I doubt it's as simple as one or two rog…

Do you imagine it is even possible that FB has not yet been served a National Security letter demanding backdoor access, on demand, to any WA account of the spooks' choice? Or that there would be any technical difficulty in complying with such an order?

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#167

Post by afpx »

gtsop wrote: post #64

Funny comments, but jokes aside, I think we're missing a very obvious reason why he has signal. Mark most likely has contacts that are super high up in governments and coorporations who use signal since they can't trust any other app. People who say that he just tested out competition, I think you guys underestimate his technological knowledge and his resources waaay too much. If he wanted to do that he could have ea…

People I know only use Signal for drugs. ymmv

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#168

Post by memorysafety »

afpx wrote: post #167
gtsop wrote: post #64

Funny comments, but jokes aside, I think we're missing a very obvious reason why he has signal. Mark most likely has contacts that are super high up in governments and coorporations who use signal since they can't trust any other app. People who say that he just tested out competition, I think you guys underestimate his technological knowledge and his resources waaay too much. If he wanted to do that he could have ea…

People I know only use Signal for drugs. ymmv

... which should be taken as a sign of Signal's technical excellence.

Just consider: if you're looking for privacy-respecting, actually secure, reviewed, audited and tested to bone tech -- short of replicating the work yourself, who's assessment can you trust? Perhaps paradoxically, you should foremost trust the unspoken opinions of criminals. Because those people are likely betting their lives and freedoms on the tech choice. Barely any other group will approach such a choice with more vigor.

So, morals aside, that a technology is being used by criminals is actually a compliment to that technology.

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#169

Post by tail_exchange »

decrypt wrote: post #45

I sent Mark a message yesterday on Signal. It was "delivered" but not "read", obviously. Today, I don't see that contact as a Signal user anymore. I see a "Invite to Signal" button on that conversation view. Guess he deleted the account?

Damn, I really missed the opportunity to send him "Oh, hi Mark!".

Re: Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal

#170

Post by Grustaf »

saagarjha wrote: post #84
rataata_jr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe its mentioned in one of his earlier comments on this platform.

It is indeed.

To be fair, how often do anonymous forum posts actually reflect the opinions of the employer?
Post reply on HN