Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support • Hacker News Board

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#121

Post by ggggkhigggj » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #92

Maybe a stupid question What good is open source, when the developer can still add a backdoor later and put the backdoored version on iOS store? I still need to trust the developer. (And Apple, too, but once I can't trust Apple I can no longer the OS itself and just throw the phone away)

Open source is, indeed, a red herring when talking about iOS or Android. It's a buzzword more than anything. And if anyone thinks you're somehow safe because people can audit the open source version of a closed iOS app, they are delusional.

You also have the baseband CPU on many devices, which can read unencrypted memory anyway. So it is a hopeless case. Which is why this whole secure text craze HN is on is just insane. You'll never beat the momentum of iMessage or WhatsApp. But worse, there is not even any point! Trust begins and ends with a closed device.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#122

Post by brewdad » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 2:40 AM UTC

mayneack wrote: post #103

guelo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The photos refused to download from the textsecure servers.

yeah, I've been burned a few times by photos. Luckily, never in a case where the sender couldn't try again using something else (it's only happened on non textsecure to textsecure, if both people use it, I haven't had any issues)

There was a bug a while back where photos would only download via cellular, but the app would try to use WiFi if you were connected. I think it is fixed now.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#123

Post by uxp » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 2:43 AM UTC

higherpurpose wrote: post #82

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way to do this in a secure manner that doesn't lead to a closed garden, that I know of at least.

And that would be different from the current iOS store, how?

I think TheLoneWolfling was talking about Verizon or AT&T enabling this kind of "only trust this cert" with one of their own as an intermediary, effectively shutting out Apple and all the actual independent developers on that ecosystem in favor of "The AT&T App Store for your iPhone by AT&T" style closed gardens.

Ultimately, Apple holds the private key that signs every developer's certificate, and thus they have the capability of granting a certificate that is in every way compatible as another developer's certificate. There is no way to escape this scenario, that plagues SSL and TLS as well, without redesigning the asymmetrical certificate infrastructure from the ground up.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#124

Post by mahyarm » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #108

scott_karana wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cryptographically well-audited replacement to iMessage, Skype, and traditional telephony, all of which leave room for governmental and malicious meddling.

It's not really a replacement, more of a secure alternative. Ideally it would be possible to totally replace iMessage with Signal allowing non-secure messages from legacy contacts. However, even if the team were so inclined Apple does not provide adequate messaging APIs. For example, there is no way to intercept an SMS message, see message history, etc.

TBH I think keeping SMS separate from an ip based communications method is better. Lets not pretend that SMS is secure. The only thing I would find missing are quick reply APIs.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#125

Post by ultramancool » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 3:02 AM UTC

anonbanker wrote: post #112

_jomo wrote: post #104

TextSecure for Android is only distributed via the Play Store. So I built it myself only to notice that Google Play Services are required for chat. I think depending on proprietary / data gathering apps is the wrong approach for an open source privacy app. It actually makes me sad. There was an issue about "This requires Google Play" on GitHub [0] which was closed by moxie with "TextSecure only requires GSF for data…

Install textsecure from F-droid. EDIT: not only is textsecure not on f-droid, but f-droid itself is woefully insecure: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/127

It actually seems to indicate that F-Droid has addressed every last obstacle Moxie has posed, even the more ridiculous ones. They're now even willing to distribute developer signed versions if reproducible by their build server. He seems to be standing by this ridiculous "F-Droid is harmful" non-sense with no good reasoning at this point. Hopefully someone will talk some sense into him sooner rather than later.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#126

Post by narrowrail » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 3:13 AM UTC

ggggkhigggj wrote: post #121

runn1ng wrote: post #92

Maybe a stupid question What good is open source, when the developer can still add a backdoor later and put the backdoored version on iOS store? I still need to trust the developer. (And Apple, too, but once I can't trust Apple I can no longer the OS itself and just throw the phone away)

Open source is, indeed, a red herring when talking about iOS or Android. It's a buzzword more than anything. And if anyone thinks you're somehow safe because people can audit the open source version of a closed iOS app, they are delusional. You also have the baseband CPU on many devices, which can read unencrypted memory anyway. So it is a hopeless case. Which is why this whole secure text craze HN is on is just insa…

Why is there always some comment that makes a point about the baseband, as if it's novel idea? This is letting great be the enemy of good.

Most of us are not going to be a target of state-level intelligence agencies, which are the only possible actors that have the sophistication to compromise the baseband processor. The idea is to prevent dragnet surveillance.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#127

Post by d2xdy2 » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 4:18 AM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #97

d2xdy2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the premise of that sort of thing is that in theory, you could build your own copy and install that, or at least check it against the pre-compiled version.

Yes, but I cannot do that with Apple's iOS (well, I can, but I have to buy certificate for 99 dollars)

Perhaps its incorrect thinking, but I trust that Moxie and the gang aren't going to screw me over.

But, yeah, in theory, you can download it and compile it. The fact that you would have to also buy a certificate from Apple to do it is just a detail. You _can_ do it.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#128

Post by droopyEyelids » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 4:40 AM UTC

stormbrew wrote: post #114

dguido wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised they didn't mention how amazingly insecure it is to be running a phone that old. If you're running a private messenger like Signal, you might not want to install it on a device vulnerable to bootrom exploits that negate all the advantages of disk encryption.

While this is true, they also, through TextSecure, support many android phones that are probably in much worse shape on that front. It's also not like web browsers refuse to use TLS because your computer's running a compromiseable version of Windows.

That analogy sure stopped and made me think. What a sticky issue. SHOULD browsers do that? What if your bank website refused to allow you to sign in from a machine running unpatched XP?

I think right now there might not be enough exploits targeting banking on XP machines to justify that inconvenience, but it seems like a responsable argument could be made for both cases.

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#129

Post by tga_d » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 5:07 AM UTC

dombili wrote: post #119

clpwn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's currently in the works as a browser extension: https://github.com/whispersystems/textsecure-browser You can keep track of its progress there :).

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but doesn't that require a smartphone with TextSecure installed? I don't own a smartphone. (I accept that I'm a weirdo.)

No, just requires a phone number. It's still under development, but if you're curious you can check out install instructions here: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser/blob/ma...

Re: Signal 2.0 released with private messaging support

#130

Post by robflynn » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 5:13 AM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #97

d2xdy2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the premise of that sort of thing is that in theory, you could build your own copy and install that, or at least check it against the pre-compiled version.

Yes, but I cannot do that with Apple's iOS (well, I can, but I have to buy certificate for 99 dollars)

At some point, you have to decide if the $8.25/mo is worth the added security, I suppose.