701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying Windows is the standard operating system. My point still stands they are saying adopt our technology, but being disingenuous by calling it a standard. Besides that how many people are using WhatsApp instead on both iPhone and Android.
No, it is not. The RCS standards are managed by the GSMA. It is supported by many companies, one of which is Google.
This is spam for the Android operating system, nothing more. Google claiming that RCS includes end-to-end encryption here is misleading. Encryption got explicitly axed from the RCS spec because carriers don't like it. The end-to-end crypto they're talking about is a custom Google thing and not part of RCS. Friends don't let friends use unencrypted everyday communications. Reject RCS and reject Google platform marketi…
Describing iMessage as having an encryption back door is disingenuous at best. There's no known encryption back doors in iMessage. As far as can be determined iMessage is fully E2EE.
There is however a caveat that the unencrypted local messages backed up to iCloud can be turned over to LEAs/governments. This caveat holds for any unencrypted data synced to iCloud. It's no different than your e-mails sitting in your iCloud mail account. Disabling syncing of Messages with iCloud closes this hole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatsapp and signal use the same encryption and the same messaging protocol. Piece of advice: As far as tech is concerned, HN isn’t a place where you can get away with talking about things you don’t understand. You’ll far too often run up against people who have more expertise in what you write about than you have expertise brushing your teeth.
I know what I'm talking about, and I'm detecting some arrogance. Also, it doesn't matter here, but where are you getting that WhatsApp and Signal use the same messaging protocol? Might be missing something, but I don't see that they both use XMPP, if that's what you mean.
Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform, rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is: Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam, supported by a fully-authenticated hardware and software stack that does not allow user modification. This permits Apple to simply “console ban” any Apple device that spams on iMessage. Th…
“I am concerned that the iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove and obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” Craig Federighi, Apple software senior vice president, wrote in 2013." They'll find another reason not to implement it on other platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like other people in this thread already get a lot of iMessage spam, so I guess you've just been lucky? And it shows that this attestation junk doesn't actually curb the spam problem, so it's just an analogue of security theater. Anyhow, sure, if you want to give away your freedom to actually own your devices, just so you don't get spam... I guess that's your choice. I just don't want to be locked into a syste…
iMessage users don't get spam from other iMessage users. Also, iMessage lets you filter out 'known' and 'unknown' senders. Apple also will automatically flag/block certain messages if they are clearly spam.
Nitpick, that's not an iMessage feature, but at "Messages" feature -- the app. The filtering applies to both iMessage and SMS.
Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform, rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is: Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam, supported by a fully-authenticated hardware and software stack that does not allow user modification. This permits Apple to simply “console ban” any Apple device that spams on iMessage. Th…
> If Android wants to join the party, then Android phone builders need to implement secure boot with hardware-signed attestation of non-rooted-ness, in the style of Apple T2 + macOS or Microsoft Pluton + Secure Boot. Until then, Apple iMessage will remain single platform. This exists and has existed for years, via the SafetyNet Attestation API [1]. [1]: https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather live in a world with spam than a world where corporations get to decide what I run on my devices, and cripple a bunch of critical applications if I decide I want to, y'know, actually do whatever I want with the hardware I own. I'm not unsympathetic to Apple's difficulties and goals here (assuming this spam problem is actually the reason, though I'm skeptical that there aren't also self-serving reasons that…
> I'd rather live in a world with spam […] That is a personal choice, and I choose to not have spam on my phone. Several months ago I was subjected to a floodgate of good ol' fashioned SMS spam that lasted several weeks. There was no way to stop the spam because the phone was receiving it through the legacy SMS channel coming specifically from Android devices infected with Flubot; the bulk of spam now comes from unpa…
If Apple provides an anti-spam SMS filtering service it is completely orthogonal to how much they decide to handcuff their own users.
SMS is not a platform specific protocol and cell phone numbers have their own independent authority (however dysfunctional it may be). So unless you decide to block yourself from the entire world outside of Apple devices, it has nothing to do with being locked down. Locking down a platform from it's own users does not intrinsically benefit security or spam prevention, saying so is a false dichotomy, no matter how much Apple spins it.
Most businesses, consumers, and developers universally continue to ignore the primary reason that iMessage is a closed platform, rather than an app on every platform as iTunes is: Apple is using device serial numbers for anti-spam, supported by a fully-authenticated hardware and software stack that does not allow user modification. This permits Apple to simply “console ban” any Apple device that spams on iMessage. Th…
A good enough and low hanging fruit solution to spam is an allowed list. Generally allow contacts (initially at least). Track spam feedback by age against contacts. If someone does end up in a spam list (and they don't rack up a high score across multiple targets), let them know they're in such a list and where to start looking to resolve that issue. A good enough solution for this is to have number carriers attest t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SMS/MMS, which is the only iMessage fallback today, is not E2E.
Not that I'm a proponent of keeping SMS around, but then what's the incentive to move to RCS? The actual "open" parts of RCS don't seem any better.