Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#541

Post by cyphermoon » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:22 AM UTC

meowfly wrote: post #195

The comment from the article echos my own sentiments: > Speaking solely as a person who is really into encrypted messaging, it terrifies me that they're going to take this really clean story of an encrypted messenger and mix it up with the nightmare of laws and regulations and vulnerability that is cryptocurrency. Moreover, there are three other points I'd add: 1. I don't like "do everything" apps like WeChat or Line…

The "scam" is using payment systems that allow their owners, controllers, or just hackers to spy on every single transaction on earth, accessing all your past present and future economical activity on demand. Not even the worst dictatorships of centuries past ever dreamt of such awareness and control.

The promotion of pseudonymous and anonymous digital payment systems such as cryptocurrencies is vital to a healthy and functioning society.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#542

Post by flal_ » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:22 AM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #526

flal_ wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then, you haven't solved the private electronic payment...

Most people don't want private electronic payments. In stable countries like the UK - where this is being launched - it's basically only useful for buying drugs and tax evasion.

One can argue than most people don't care about private messaging as well... I find it a bit scary that my bank has all my purchasing data : they basically know everything about me that way, what if they decide to sell this data ?

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#543

Post by fauigerzigerk » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:27 AM UTC

That's very unfortunate. When I installed Signal, I didn't mean to open another account in which taxable assets can be traded.

In the Wired article, they argue why this doesn't put a target on Signal's back as they are not becoming an exchange. Good for them, but what about Signal users' backs?

With this feature, the range of reasons why the authorities might justifiably want to have a look at the contents of my Signal app has just widened dramatically.

If you're using this feature in the UK, you are well advised to read the HMRC guidance on the taxation of cryptocurrency:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/cryptoassets-manual...

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#544

Post by CorrectHorseBat » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:42 AM UTC

simias wrote: post #527

reader_mode wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I use Signal on a phone and a laptop, switching between the two frequently throughout the day and see the same conversations on both. I've had multiple issues with this before I gave up on Signal, it wouldn't show history when I initially paired up even when importing forever, then randomly stopped being connected and required me to pair again (losing everything on PC again) > There's been a manual, secure transfer…

Same experience here. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the Signal devs decided to implement something like stickers (which, btw, are a pale imitation of what Telegram offers in terms of ease of use and discovery) before they implemented full message sync between devices. I have a smartphone that I control. I have a desktop computer that I control. I use an application on both computers that lets me send secure messa…

I'm not surprised at all. 3 out of 4 big message apps (Line, WhatsApp and Wechat) don't support full message sync, it's clearly not a showstopper for mass adoption. 99% of the people don't need it and it's hard to implement correctly. Not importing old messages could be a security feature.

Stickers on the other hand are something that does attract many casual users and has no security implications.

Payment features... I think it's a bad idea for many different reasons but it might attract many users if it's not too complex.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#545

Post by codethief » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:54 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #444

This is a terrible decision. Feature bloat is one of the worst things for a security conscious product. The more features, the more attack vectors. Nobody asked for payments in Signal. Where did this idea come from? It was never put forward prior to this, it was never on the road map. That only makes me even more suspicious of this decision, which leads to my second point... MobileCoin has all the appearances of a sc…

> There was no mention of this collaboration beforehand.

There was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26718488

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#546

Post by tsimionescu » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:03 AM UTC

Klonoar wrote: post #505

tsimionescu wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quid pro quo to include an obscure scam coin out of the blue into an entirely unrelated product, with a public promise from the scam club owners to donate their money to your business. The fact the the owner of signal had already been associated with MobileCoin for a long time makes it worse, not better.

...no, the fact that the founder of Signal advised it for years indicates it's not an "obscure scam coin" from out of the blue. If Signal had built this themselves, in house, nobody would bat an eye. You're stretching hard here.

Signal including a cryptocoin came completely out of the blue (well, apparently there were rumors, but that doesn't mean it was an expected change). MobileCoin is also deeply suspicious in its mining model, and is not some well known coin.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#547

Post by po » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

sammorrowdrums wrote: post #453

meowfly wrote: post #195

The comment from the article echos my own sentiments: > Speaking solely as a person who is really into encrypted messaging, it terrifies me that they're going to take this really clean story of an encrypted messenger and mix it up with the nightmare of laws and regulations and vulnerability that is cryptocurrency. Moreover, there are three other points I'd add: 1. I don't like "do everything" apps like WeChat or Line…

Crypto integration was one of the things that arguably killed Keybase for a lot of users, and damaged trust. Given that trust is the selling point for these type of services, I really hope Signal don't lose it.

Yeah, it was a disaster for Keybase IMO. My messaging tools are already valuable enough to me, the last thing I wanted was a reward on hacking it. When keybase did their Stellar drop, I didn't activate it and it was just a nagging option in the UI forever.

I don't like using SMS for 2FA because it encourages people to social engineer the phone company to port the victim's phone numbers. I wouldn't want crypto in my messaging app for a similar reason.

Right now hacking a user's Signal account means you get some txt messages. Big deal. With payments there is now real reason to try to hack Signal accounts because some percentage of them will contain money.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#548

Post by codethief » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #471

bilal4hmed wrote: post #103

With Signal not releasing their server code and now this, I regret using and asking a good chunk of my base to move to Signal.

I regret finding out Signal uses recaptcha in its welcome screen, and sets the Google PREF cookie permanently in the App's Cache. Traceable by Google every time you open the App... and using Google's Backup service to store the private keys unencrypted. Well, so much for E2EE. This combined with what went on with LibreSignal and legal threats from moxie made me realize it's just a company selling privacy claims witho…

You're making very strong claims here. Signal regularly goes the extra mile to protect their users from 3rd-party tracking (by Giphy[0, 1] etc.) and, as they noted on GitHub at some point, they also consciously decided against UI/UX tracking and error reporting because they did not want to give off the impression that they themselves are surveilling their users. And now you're telling us that they deliberately included tracking by Google? That doesn't seem likely.

> Google PREF cookie

The PREF cookie is for Google's safe browsing feature. How on Earth would that find its way into Signal? (I doubt the link preview feature uses that, given how much effort they put into making sure they get it right[2].)

> Traceable by Google every time you open the App...

How so? AFAIK the Signal app doesn't connect to the Google servers directly (reCAPTCHA aside – I have yet to see it in Signal but even then it would be a one-time thing), so even if the cookie existed, it wouldn't get transferred anywhere. The Firebase Cloud Messaging library / Google Play Services on your phone do connect to Google but they carry unique identifiers, anyway (or otherwise push notifications would not work). If you don't want that, use a phone without all the Google stuff – Signal works fine without it (though it might need more battery).

> and using Google's Backup service to store the private keys unencrypted

Could you provide a source that's more accurate than "decompile the APK" or "read the source code"? AFAIR the app's database is encrypted at rest by a key in the phone's hardware key store precisely because the Signal developers did not want Google Backup to get access to the app's data. (Which is why they ended up rolling their own backup solution.)

> This combined with what went on with LibreSignal and legal threats from moxie made me realize it's just a company selling privacy claims without proof.

What legal threats? (I'm familiar with the discussion but I have yet to see Moxie threatening anyone.)

[0]: https://signal.org/blog/giphy-experiment/

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/signal-and-giphy-update/

[2]: https://signal.org/blog/i-link-therefore-i-am/

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#549

Post by insert_coin » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:20 AM UTC

syrrim wrote: post #355

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Someone steals money, sends them to you, your are having lots of trouble proving you are not an accomplice. If you are a government official, you can be framed as receiving a bribe. In russia government can send your organisation money from abroad via an agent and then shut you down as a 'foreign agent'.

How do they prove they sent it to you?

Prove? we are talking about Russia here.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#550

Post by cookiengineer » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:35 AM UTC

codethief wrote: post #548

cookiengineer wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret finding out Signal uses recaptcha in its welcome screen, and sets the Google PREF cookie permanently in the App's Cache. Traceable by Google every time you open the App... and using Google's Backup service to store the private keys unencrypted. Well, so much for E2EE. This combined with what went on with LibreSignal and legal threats from moxie made me realize it's just a company selling privacy claims witho…

You're making very strong claims here. Signal regularly goes the extra mile to protect their users from 3rd-party tracking (by Giphy[0, 1] etc.) and, as they noted on GitHub at some point, they also consciously decided against UI/UX tracking and error reporting because they did not want to give off the impression that they themselves are surveilling their users. And now you're telling us that they deliberately includ…

> AFAIK the Signal app doesn't connect to the Google servers directly, so even if it exists, the cookie doesn't get transferred anywhere. The Firebase Cloud Messaging library / Google Play Services on your phone do connect to Google but they carry unique identifiers, anyway.

It does connect to google's servers for pretty much everything [1] - you can look for these constants in the codebase and you'll find lots of things that would worry any netsec person, including the key backup related stuff.

Signal doesn't only use firebase for the sake of Push Notifications. Also have in mind that push notifications/firebase is unnecessary with a high priority notification, which is what e.g. other f-droid FOSS forks of other apps use instead.

> What legal threats? (I'm familiar with the discussion but I have yet to see Moxie threatening anyone.)

Granted, most of the discussions in LibreSignal's repo [2] got very heated very quickly. Can't find the twitter thread of @moxie at the time, and lots of replies in there got deleted from both sides. Maybe someone else can provide an archived version or screenshot? [3]

> Could you provide a source that's more accurate (...)?

Make an Access Point, use smartphone to connect to it. Run Wireshark, and you'll see what's happening. Use an AOSP ROM and use the Signal Download without Google Play Services (to be sure that it's not Google Play noise you're observing) [4].

[1] https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/d74e9f74103...

[2] https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37

[3] https://twitter.com/comzeradd/status/733677192870297600

[4] https://signal.org/android/apk/