Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by a "connected" web interface? And what would being a desktop application bring it? Signal Desktop is somewhat buggy, not that full-features, and doesn't integrate that well with the rest of my OS, but otherwise it's working fine, and I can use it simultaneously with my phone. (But I can also use it with my phone turned off, which I love.)
> but otherwise it's working fine It doesn't work at all for me, because it requires a mobile phone number, which I don't have (a phone + any monthly subscription fee doesn't fit in a tiny fixed income budget).
I don't trust Signal
201–210 of 473 posts
Re: I don't trust Signal
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their USP is "security made simple", in other words: use Signal because it's as easy as the mainstream alternatives, but far more secure (but not perfect).
That only works if they're actually more secure than the mainstream alternatives. I don't think they are; Signal has transport encryption but the system probably isn't secure against Open Whisper Systems themselves or someone who controls the central server, which is the same security situation you'd be in with any of the alternatives I mentioned.
Re: I don't trust Signal
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the context of this article, framed as an alternative to Signal, I think it should be.
Why? Let's compare it to F-Droid: He isn't saying that Signal should be distributed via F-Droid by default , just that there should be the option. So the article doesn't seem to say that the defaults are what matter.
Re: I don't trust Signal
#204Re: I don't trust Signal
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not willing to support Signal if they are unwilling to federate the system. Sure, it doesn't allow them the flexibility they'd like to have to move forward but in a way it won't be their fault if federated servers aren't keeping themselves up to date when there's a major protocol change and they get temporarily splitted from the pool.
It doesn’t matter whose “fault” it is — the issue is the practical effect that will result. This is exactly his point with the SMTP and GitHub analogy from the “moving ecosystems” post. Why do you think the split would be “temporary”? As long as “email” is a thing, as in “just send me an email”, and it’s a federated set of randomly updated servers, “email” will never have end-to-end encryption, because the first vers…
Re: I don't trust Signal
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram has a history of obvious backdoors, everyone should avoid telegram. http://habrahabr.ru/post/206900/ Some people may try to blame this on incompetence, but they still won't be able to explain how exactly someone might arrive at this implementation without malicious intent.
Would you stop posting this in every Telegram thread? I personally explained to you why this is a complete nonsense as far as conspiracy theories go [1] as did several others. Give it a rest already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17195956
If you actually stop for a minute to consider what's happening here, it's pretty difficult to dismiss telegrams choices as mere incompetence.
Do you feel personally insulted by comments criticizing telegram?
Re: I don't trust Signal
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article isn't about bad encryption though. It's not about a flaw in the signal protocol or something like that. It's stuff like Moxie doesn't like F-Droid. Which is not an invalid criticism but I'm not gonna stop recommending Signal over Facebook Messenger because of that. Regarding false sense of security...eh. I can't speak for endangered activists but everyday people write stupid things whether it's on SMS or…
> The article isn't about bad encryption though. It's not about a flaw in the signal protocol or something like that. It's stuff like Moxie doesn't like F-Droid. Which is not an invalid criticism but I'm not gonna stop recommending Signal over Facebook Messenger because of that. You have to look at the whole system, not just one algorithm that it uses - if any part of the system is secure then the whole is insecure.…
In terms of how Signal compares to something like Facebook Messenger using HTTPS that's an actual technical question that's worth talking about (whereas "Oh no, Moxie Marlinspike is a mean person who hates F-Droid" is basically just noise)
HTTPS gives us two ingredients, both relevant here, TLS and HTTP. TLS is intended to deliver privacy and data integrity between two parties, it does a pretty good job at that, but it's very common to have configurations which do not result in Forward Secrecy. This means messages that couldn't be read by any potential adversary today could become readable tomorrow - long after both parties don't need them any more - if the adversary obtains a long term key. Your web browser might, possibly, tell you about this risk if you ask, but it definitely won't flag it in the main UI. Next, Facebook is authenticated to you by its proof of possession of a Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in a certificate from a Trusted Third Party CA. An adversary could corrupt this CA, but hopefully that's difficult.
Now, why does HTTP even matter? Well, although TLS _can_ authenticate both parties, on the Web today we rarely do that. Instead the web server is authenticated using TLS but the client (a Facebook user) has some crummy HTTP layer authentication, maybe a password like "1LvUrDog" filled into an HTML form field.
So, between those two cracks, if the Secret Police either steal your brilliant canine-related Facebook password or get Facebook to give them a long term key, they can read all your Facebook Messenger chat, eavesdropping on it indefinitely.
Signal doesn't use passwords. Your device has randomly picked a Private Key, but unlike Facebook you don't have a certificate from a CA, instead you can compare the associated Public Key on your device with that shown for another participant on their phone, if they don't match there's a Man in the Middle. So immediately that's an improvement, no password guessing.
Signal also has Forward Secrecy. In fact each message sent and received changes the keys used for future messages. As a result an adversary can only eavesdrop by actively impersonating one of the participants. In a two person conversation that's often likely to become obvious pretty quickly whereas passive eavesdropping is undetectable.
Re: I don't trust Signal
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree, and will use a real computer once I find pants with wide enough pocket for it :)
My everyday solution is pretty simple. I don't carry a computing device with me. If I do carry a cell phone it's turned off. If I'm in my car I use an old thinkpad laptop and my own 900 MHz wireless network using ubiquiti transceivers and a 30ft pole on my house at home with a custom antenna sticking up out of my vehicle's sunroof. The car's kit re-serves this IP link to my home network over wifi to any devices in th…
https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel
Point is, there is no pure platforms today, except probably some Marvell ARM boards with full open source firmware.
Re: I don't trust Signal
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with you if only Signal would not ask for so many permissions on my phone.
It would be great if it asked for those permissions when it needed to do something - for example ask for mic permission at the point you want to make your first voice call. I see some apps going that direction and it's refreshing. edit: Apparently, Signal does this for some things? See comment-replies.
1: https://developer.android.com/training/permissions/requestin...
Re: I don't trust Signal
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's easier for Google to manipulate a package on Google Play than on F-Droid. That's not how Android app signing works. It's a "trust on first use" model, so once you install an app, any update must be signed by the same key or the system will refuse to install it. That key is held by Signal, not Google, so Google cannot sign updates to apps. > WhatsApp has done that to even more people, so what's the point of Sig…
> That's not how Android app signing works. Google has root, so it can change how app signing works at any time. > Both have their pros and cons, and both have legitimate reasons to exist. I just looks to me like whenever someone mentions a pro point of Signal, it's something where WhatsApp shines even more (e.g. "brings end-to-end encryption to the masses", "it's available on the App stores", "better iOS support tha…
This argument boils down to "what if the government compels Google to infect your phone with spyware", and it's already been established elsewhere in this thread that using a smartphone for sensitive communication might not be the best idea if the NSA is after you.
Regarding advantages of Signal over WhatsApp, I just gave you one in the message you replied to. WhatsApp provides a lot of metadata to their servers (this is necessary for some of their features, like group invite links). And while end-to-end encryption protects the contents of your messages, Facebook can still observe when and how much you chat with whom.
Some further advantages off the top of my hat: Signal has reproducible builds (on Android), the Desktop client works when your phone is off. They're also working on private contact discovery (I don't know how far this has progressed): https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/