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

Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

support.signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 512 posts

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#271

Post by atemerev »

brewdad wrote: post #247
atemerev wrote: post #78

I absolutely do not understand why I have to link my very sensitive Signal account to a very insecure and hard to change ID: my phone number (which can be traced to my identity in too many ways). Why Signal does not allow fully anonymous IDs (like Threema does) is a mystery to me. Signal is fine for most users, but it is inherently _unsafe_ for high-value sensitive communications where participants can expect targete…

Anonymity isn't part of Signal's risk model. If you need to stay anonymous, then there are more suitable options.

It is not about being anonymous (though this also could be nice in some situations), it is about identity theft and credentials theft. There are numerous ways to steal my phone number and then impersonate me on Signal. For me, it is not a big deal (though a dedicated hater can probably ruin my life with that). For many people in sensitive positions, this is literally a matter of life and death.

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#272

Post by nobody9999 »

lrvick wrote: post #189
nobody9999 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I refuse to use or recommend Signal due to blatantly bad design choices that put people that need privacy most at risk like security researchers, journalists, abortion seekers, or dissidents. I understand your concerns, and if I was a security researcher, journalist, abortion seeker or dissident, I wouldn't use Signal either. But, like the vast majority of us, I am not any of those things. As such, for my (and most…

Those of us that do not need high privacy today might need it tomorrow, or maybe someone we frequently communicate with. We also have a responsibility to favor tools and practices that make those that really need privacy not stand out. Element or other Matrix clients are easy to use and lack the serious flaws I outlined for Signal.

I'd point out that for most people (I suppose that could change, and I wouldn't be upset if such changes resulted in better privacy), messaging is often phone-based and includes folks who use secure methods like Signal and Matrix as well as those who use iMessage and OEM SMS clients.

When it comes to that sort of messaging ("I'm running a few minutes late and will meet you inside the restaurant," or similar) I don't (and won't) separate those out. I just use Signal for all such messages.

Which makes for inconvenience when (especially iPhone users) install Signal and still use iMessage.

I'd add that if I have something to discuss that I don't want recorded (don't forget that it's not just your device that puts you at risk, anyone who's received such messages do so as well), I'll use encrypted voice calls (with the assumption -- valid or not -- that the other participant(s) aren't recording that conversation) with Signal or Matrix.

In both my personal and professional life, I've always made sure to only put in writing that which I wouldn't care if it was shared with the world.

Which is no different than it's ever been. I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a new thing or that somehow "technology" obviates the need for good OpSec. It never did and still doesn't.

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#273

Post by jraph »

dylan604 wrote: post #268
jraph wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unsafe. They could lock you out from your Signal account and impersonate you. Someone who does not know you changed your number, forgot about it or does not think about this could then send a message to the person who has your old phone number thinking it's you at the other end. Most people don't bother with the warning about the security number having changed. I also personally assume that the phone number of a…

Thanks for the link. I have been way too lazy after having the new number for nearly a year. I just couldn't not do it after someone on the internet did the heavy lifting for me.

Happy to know I had a (hopefully) positive impact :-)

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#274

Post by MayeulC »

cookiengineer wrote: post #171
uncomputation wrote: post #47

Yes, Signal’s phone number requirement is bad. But, given that, the fact that they don’t store any messages on their side and everything is client side is still a huge benefit over a lot of other apps and still a huge step forward for privacy! Criticism is definitely important but I just wanted to put that out there that all things considered, Signal is still very much a good thing.

> don’t store any messages on their side Google Play services are still required for the official builds because of the (unverifiable to be really) encrypted backups. > everything is client-side Signal's FOSS fork developers would disagree. They got outright legal problems after they wanted to implement an open source alternative. Most APIs in regards to contact management are server-side. There's Molly as a younger…

> Google Play services are still required for the official builds because of the (unverifiable to be really) encrypted backups.

??? I use the official build with encrypted backups without Google services, and have been doing so for at least 3 years. I've been forward-carying my backup since 2016, too.

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#275

Post by theK »

pr0zac wrote: post #225
Jenk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where does Telegram fit in your opinion? genuine question from someone oblivious to messaging advances in the last decade.

Telegram only provides e2e encryption for one-to-one conversations and only if you specifically create a "secret chat" largely because of usability and discoverability reasons with regard to their major point of focus. Its probably better discussed in comparison to other services like IRC, Matrix, Discord, or Slack that concentrate on feature rich group chat implementation with easy discoverability, organization, and…

Doesn’t matrix also do all that with the added benefit of federated Id and pulling Chat history from an e2e group chat?

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#276

Post by stormbrew »

dcow wrote: post #254
stormbrew wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this is the product you want, then go use it. This is great advice if your goal is to send messages to yourself. In the real world, though, a messaging app that you're the only one using is about as useful as a bag of ice in a snowstorm. People don't need "like signal but with usernames," they need "signal with usernames (or email addresses or...)" so they can communicate with people who use signal.

This doesn't make any sense. My assertion is that Signal would not be Signal if it has usernames. The subtext that I did not state specifically is exactly the question of why more people don't use Keybase regularly. Maybe it's not the winning UX? You don't get to look over at Signal and say "wow what a great user base I need to be a part of that" and then draw the conclusion that "Signal needs to support my idealogic…

fwiw I am a user of signal and I am expressing my need. Allowing it access to my contact list and my phone number is a privilege I extend nearly uniquely to it among similar apps and I want that gone. Because I can't just "not use signal," because signal is where the people I need to talk to are. Users are a key feature of any social product, you can't just "all else equal" them away.

It's not really my problem if it's hard. That's for them to figure out. Until they do I will continue to be an unhappy user of their product, and no amount of people on the internet willing to defend their choices as if they were their own is going to change that.

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#277

Post by dylan604 »

jraph wrote: post #273
dylan604 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. I have been way too lazy after having the new number for nearly a year. I just couldn't not do it after someone on the internet did the heavy lifting for me.

Happy to know I had a (hopefully) positive impact :-)

Yes, you get your Good Deed For the Day merit badge!

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#278

Post by teraflop »

tablespoon wrote: post #265
teraflop wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a problem that could easily be solved by sending fewer notifications. Do I really need to know if somebody has joined Signal until I actually want to talk to them? Isn't it better to have a larger pool of people with whom I can communicate securely using Signal? I'm mostly just confused because this is being presented as a technical limitation: using email addresses would supposedly "require Signal to…

> That seems like a problem that could easily be solved by sending fewer notifications. Do I really need to know if somebody has joined Signal until I actually want to talk to them? I don't know what the real reason is, what I said was just something that popped into my head. Another comment mentioned spam-prevention as a reason (by making it infeasibly expensive), and that actually makes more sense. Honestly, there…

Sorry, just to clarify: I didn't mean "it's better if people who don't want to give out their phone number can use Signal" (although I happen to think that's also true).

What I meant was: "it's better if I can use Signal to communicate with people even if all I know is their email address".

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#279

Post by tptacek »

stormbrew wrote: post #276
dcow wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense. My assertion is that Signal would not be Signal if it has usernames. The subtext that I did not state specifically is exactly the question of why more people don't use Keybase regularly. Maybe it's not the winning UX? You don't get to look over at Signal and say "wow what a great user base I need to be a part of that" and then draw the conclusion that "Signal needs to support my idealogic…

fwiw I am a user of signal and I am expressing my need. Allowing it access to my contact list and my phone number is a privilege I extend nearly uniquely to it among similar apps and I want that gone. Because I can't just "not use signal," because signal is where the people I need to talk to are. Users are a key feature of any social product, you can't just "all else equal" them away. It's not really my problem if it…

Allowing the Signal client to access your contact list is literally the premise of Signal; it's the core security UX trade it makes: no durable logs of who's talking to who on the servers, and contact lists stored exclusively on the client.

Re: Twilio incident: What Signal users need to know

#280

Post by dcow »

stormbrew wrote: post #276
dcow wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense. My assertion is that Signal would not be Signal if it has usernames. The subtext that I did not state specifically is exactly the question of why more people don't use Keybase regularly. Maybe it's not the winning UX? You don't get to look over at Signal and say "wow what a great user base I need to be a part of that" and then draw the conclusion that "Signal needs to support my idealogic…

fwiw I am a user of signal and I am expressing my need. Allowing it access to my contact list and my phone number is a privilege I extend nearly uniquely to it among similar apps and I want that gone. Because I can't just "not use signal," because signal is where the people I need to talk to are. Users are a key feature of any social product, you can't just "all else equal" them away. It's not really my problem if it…

It is certainly fair to be frustrated. Respectfully, I'd challenge anyone who thinks they can build a successful secure messaging platform that concocts the perfect UX while being absolutely privacy preserving to do so. I'd give it a spin.
Post reply on HN