Unfortunately when I used Redphone previously the call quality is pretty bad. The volume of the call would get screwed up and I know it's not to do with the signals (lol) because I would hang up and call the person back without redphone and it would work perfectly.
Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
131–140 of 158 posts
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you talk about it in English which is a fraction of the potential market.
English: signal Bosnian (Latin): signala Bulgarian: сигнал Catalan: senyal Croatian: signala Czech: signál Danish: signal Dutch: signaal Estonian: signaali Finnish: signaali French: signal German: Signal Indonesian: sinyal Italian: segnale Latvian: signāls Lithuanian: signalas Yucatec Maya: señal Norwegian: signalet Querétaro Otomi: señal Polish: sygnał Portuguese: sinal Russian: сигнал Serbian (Latin): signal Slovak…
That the literal translations of the word 'signal'. At least in Germany that is not used for talking about a phone signal. It's 'empfang' (reception) instead. I am sure other languages differ as well?
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huge respect for Moxie, but the requirement of a phone number really is a dealkiller. 1. Phone number requires a service provider 2. Service provider owns the baseband and root of your phone. 3. $government makes a "lawful request" of Verizon et. al. to install keyloggers/screenshotters on your phone. 4. Your "secure" commms are compromised. Signal needs to work on comprehensively rooted devices connected only via wi…
If we were going to rank our priorities, they would be in this order: 1) Make mass surveillance impossible. 2) Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds. It's not that we don't find #2 laudable, but optimizing for #1 takes precedence when we're making decisions. It's totally possible for you to install Signal on an iPod touch with a VoIP number, for instance, but that takes more effort than the common case we're des…
moxie,
Please consider my suggestions here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10501636
I would argue that an identifier is just that: an identifier. It does not need to be a number nor does it have to be for an indefinite amount of time.
Lastly, please consider disabling the debug log by default
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#134TextSecure used to be on fDroid, then this happened https://f-droid.org/posts/security-notice-textsecure/ . Now it's a GPlay exclusive. I don't have GAPPS so now I can't get it. I'd assume many privacy conscious people don't have GAPPS. I understand the technical hurtles, but it's too big a pill to swallow.
I didn't see a link of this somewhere, so I'll just drop it: https://github.com/JavaJens/TextSecure
This is a fork of TextSecure/Signal which drops the dependency on GCM and uses WebSockets instead (it seems quite up-to-date with origin as well).
For anyone wanting a pre-build copy, there is a non-official F-Droid repository hosting both the "main" Signal and the WebSocket fork here: https://fdroid.eutopia.cz/
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#135Supporting android 2.3 is the equivalent of supporting Windows XP at this point. Why do it? Those Android 2.3 devices will be vulnerable as hell anyway, and I imagine it just makes it hard to support them, too, taking precious time from working on new features or cryptography. IMO, you should support only Android 4.1+ and up.
Also, I'm confused as to why Signal still asks to be my "default SMS app" when I thought the code to encrypt SMS texts was removed from TextSecure? Why would I still want my SMS's handled by Signal?
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the centralisation and use of the phone number is necessary to make it not shit. Anyway you forgot the important features: * Nice modern UI * Integrates with SMS * Supports group chats * Uses MMS for group chat if not all members have Signal * Not really buggy or hard to use
Huge respect for Moxie, but the requirement of a phone number really is a dealkiller. 1. Phone number requires a service provider 2. Service provider owns the baseband and root of your phone. 3. $government makes a "lawful request" of Verizon et. al. to install keyloggers/screenshotters on your phone. 4. Your "secure" commms are compromised. Signal needs to work on comprehensively rooted devices connected only via wi…
I'd say only being available on Google Play is an even greater dealkiller. Telegram (which is, to be honest, not quite comparable) is on F-droid, that I like.
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the centralisation and use of the phone number is necessary to make it not shit. Anyway you forgot the important features: * Nice modern UI * Integrates with SMS * Supports group chats * Uses MMS for group chat if not all members have Signal * Not really buggy or hard to use
Hmm? I'm relatively certain Signal removed all support for SMS/MMS and requires all parties to use the Signal app https://whispersystems.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/
This is why I chose to switch to SMSSecure. I've encountered a "bug" where I can be autoconnected to a known wi-fi (at say the library or a coffee shop) that requires authentication. Since my phone sees me as connected to wi-fi, it tries to send my messages via that channel instead of 4G data. Since I haven't authenticated to the wifi (phone never left my pocket), I don't receive any messages.
When I arrive home a few hours later, my phone blows up with a bunch of missed messages.
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#138Supporting android 2.3 is the equivalent of supporting Windows XP at this point. Why do it? Those Android 2.3 devices will be vulnerable as hell anyway, and I imagine it just makes it hard to support them, too, taking precious time from working on new features or cryptography. IMO, you should support only Android 4.1+ and up. Also, I'm confused as to why Signal still asks to be my "default SMS app" when I thought the…
Because you want to store them on your phone encrypted, so that no one else can read them without knowing your passphrase?
Sure, the fact they're transmitted to your carrier in a 100% readable form removes most of the benefit of this, but it can still stop prying eyes from reading your texts.
Also, it's trying to be like iMessage. You have a single messenger, where you default to unsecure SMS for those contacts that don't have Signal, but default to secure messaging for those that do, all in the one app without you having to think about it.
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not because they check that against the list of people who have Signal installed so they can send encrypted messages to the people who support it. They talk more about how they try to do this privately in [0]. [0]: https://whispersystems.org/blog/contact-discovery/
I had a problem where one of my contracts uninstalled Textsecure, and went back to the vanilla SMS app. Now all the messages he received from me are garbled. Somehow they need a way to disassociate phones AFTER the app has been uninstalled.
Wouldn't that be a huge security flaw? Someone with access to your phone could uninstall the app then read all the messages.
Re: Signal for Android: RedPhone and TextSecure in one app
#140As long as it still requires Google Play I'll still consider it snake oil.
[deleted]