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

I don't trust Signal

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 473 posts

Re: I don't trust Signal

#321

Post by tptacek »

xvector wrote: post #279
dublinben wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already made the APK available directly on their website for over a year now.[0][1] It works just fine (albeit a little heavy on battery usage) without the Google Play Store or Google Play Services. What more do you really want? [0] https://signal.org/android/apk/ [1] https://whispersystems.discoursehosting.net/t/how-to-get-sig...

Please actually read the article before saying that the accusations are invalid.

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: I don't trust Signal

#322

Post by baby »

Boulth wrote: post #301
baby wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Linus' argument, if you don't work with a web of trust then you're doing it wrong. In the context of mobile secure messaging the web of trust includes: I'm trusting every hardware component on my phone, I'm trusting Apple, I'm trusting the iOS code, I'm trusting the TLS protocol, etc.

> I like Linus' argument, if you don't work with a web of trust then you're doing it wrong I can't find the source for this, could you tell where did you take this from? (not saying it's not true, just curious to read the full text)

It was a video on him talking to students and asked about security in the kernel IIRC. I'm on my phone now but if you find it please post the link :)

Re: I don't trust Signal

#323

Post by tptacek »

xvector wrote: post #284
s73v3r_ wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"why he does not maintain a F-Droid repository for people who do not trust google" Are you paying him to do that? No? Well, there you go. It's more work, for what appears to be very little benefit.

As another person said: > The Signal Foundation has 50 million dollars.

None of it came from the phone sysadmins. Rather, it came from a benefactor that wanted to work with Moxie and Trevor.

Re: I don't trust Signal

#324

Post by aepc2 »

r3bl wrote: post #40

> P.S. If you’re looking for good alternatives to Signal, I can recommend Matrix. Yes, if you're looking for alternatives to Signal, you should totally use a solution that hasn't rolled out end-to-end encryption by default[0]. /s ...and that only two clients have implemented so far, out of 50ish that they list on their website. [0] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-status-o...

Or conversations.im? Matrix + riot leaves a heap of meta data about you on the federated server. If that server is compromised, so are you.

Re: I don't trust Signal

#325

Post by pmlnr »

Vinnl wrote: post #201
pdkl95 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think that has anything to do with the desktop app specifically?

It does. Desktop app is desktop, end of story - no GSM connection and/or phone number should be required.

Re: I don't trust Signal

#326

Post by bjoli »

snvzz wrote: post #52
r3bl wrote: post #40

> P.S. If you’re looking for good alternatives to Signal, I can recommend Matrix. Yes, if you're looking for alternatives to Signal, you should totally use a solution that hasn't rolled out end-to-end encryption by default[0]. /s ...and that only two clients have implemented so far, out of 50ish that they list on their website. [0] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-status-o...

That ticks me off too. I'd rather suggest Tox. For all the hate it gets, it does only have mode of communication: End-to-end encrypted, for your contact (as people's addresses are pubkeys) and with forward secrecy. Most "secure" IM systems fail this basic test. When proper end-to-end encryption is optional, guess what happens.

Well. I'd rather not have anyone suggest tox. The whole "we use nacl so we are safe" attitude from a couple of years ago seems to still be around. Good on them for using nacl. A shame they don't seem to realize that you can write bad crypto with it.

The whole forward secrecy seems to be unresolved still. They have session keys,but other than that there is no rekeying.

And then we have the whole issue with it relying on supernodes for much of its functionality (offline messages, mobile phone client rs) which leads to it having a subset of the issues many have with signal.

Re: I don't trust Signal

#327

Post by trumped »

lucb1e wrote: post #240
trumped wrote: post #216

Signal is at least as good as all the other cloud messaging apps... (privacy wise)

Sure but I think that is a given. The fact that it's "at least as [secure]" as something that stores chats in plaintext on their servers (Telegram) is not exactly news...

> The fact that it's "at least as [secure]" as something that stores chats in plaintext on their servers (Telegram) is not exactly news...

probably news to most people... because most people appear to be trusting it....

Re: I don't trust Signal

#329

Post by Hello71 »

leshow wrote: post #299
lez wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-Droid argument is the strongest and most evident among all. I don't trust Google, I don't trust Play. The main point is, Moxie could take the wind out of the sails of literally all arguments in this page by publishing Signal on F-Droid but he just won't. This alone is enough for me to lose trust in Signal.

It seems pretty odd to me to distrust someone because they aren't using the platform that you'd like them to use. Aren't there other issues with f-droid? You have to root your device to run it, allow third party code. Those are all security concerns too. It was posted elsewhere but here's Moxie's take: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/127#issue...

> You have to root your device to run it

wtf. I have been using F-Droid for many years, and this has not been the case. as far as I know, this has never been the case, as Android has always had functions for third party app stores. in fact, even today, F-Droid recommends not using root for installs, since then you don't get the screen showing permissions.

> allow third party code

that's called running apps.

tl;dr nice FUD.

Re: I don't trust Signal

#330

Post by mjg59 »

jhasse wrote: post #287
mjg59 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? (I work for Google, I don't work on Android)

The Play services run as root IIRC and listen to commands from Google's servers (e.g. to push updates to the devices). Even if they don't have enough priveleges to intercept the keyboard, Google has all the signing keys to replace system apps that do.

The full set of Android processes running as root on my Pixel 2 is https://pastebin.com/sTtQVz3m - which of these is from Play Services?

I think that in most cases the system services that are in a position to interfere with the keyboard in any way are provided by the phone manufacturer rather than Google - obviously if you're running gBoard then Google has control over that, but I'm not aware of any way that Google fundamentally has control over the other frameworks that the keyboard interacts with (but, again, I don't work on Android - I'd love a more definitive answer on this)

Post reply on HN