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

I don't trust Signal (2018)

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#61

Post by tptacek »

ddevault wrote: post #56
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point to the mainstream secure messenger other than Signal that doesn't store a database of contacts serverside.

[flagged]

I don't understand. You just claimed that it was easy for messengers to store contact databases clientside. Of course, it isn't, or everyone would. Asking you to provide evidence for your argument isn't "whataboutism". Not only that, but you're commenting on a thread about Signal's phone number requirement.

You can't inject snark into a thread and then assume some kind of moral high ground when you faceplant.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#62

Post by Shared404 »

tptacek wrote: post #60
Shared404 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) I see that nowhere in this post, so the author must have retracted it when he found that out. B) Matrix has always been very easy to set up E2E C) Matrix is now E2E by default, at least with the client non-technical users will be using. I think it is for the other clients as well, but I do not know for sure.

Yes, the author ghost-edited it out of his post, months later. You can see the original on Archive.org. Matrix was years from being E2E by default when this post, and that recommendation, was written.

> Yes, the author ghost-edited it out of his post, months later.

It was still removed. Would it have been better to leave a note saying it had been? Yes. Nobody is perfect however.

> Matrix was years from being E2E by default when this post, and that recommendation, was written.

See point B from my other comment.

Edit: Add Would ... however.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#63

Post by tptacek »

Shared404 wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the author ghost-edited it out of his post, months later. You can see the original on Archive.org. Matrix was years from being E2E by default when this post, and that recommendation, was written.

> Yes, the author ghost-edited it out of his post, months later. It was still removed. Would it have been better to leave a note saying it had been? Yes. Nobody is perfect however. > Matrix was years from being E2E by default when this post, and that recommendation, was written. See point B from my other comment. Edit: Add Would ... however.

I'm not sure how point B is relevant. Obviously, every message board argument about bad UX is going to feature someone saying that the UX is just fine. Telling vulnerable users to adopt a tool that is default plaintext is malpractice.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#64

Post by redthrow »

frabbit wrote: post #24

Signal falls into an uncomfortable place for me. I like pre-paid cellphone plans which give me a small number of text messages, a small amount of airtime. Using these I can communicate with people when I am not near a WiFi AP. I do not want to pay for data and would prefer to use my and my friends' access points and the free wifi in the small number of commercial locations that I visit. In Canada all of the major car…

In Canada, Fido has $10/m + tax "Tablet Plan" which can be used on phones and gives you 4GB/m data

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#65

Post by ddevault »

tptacek wrote: post #61
ddevault wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't understand. You just claimed that it was easy for messengers to store contact databases clientside. Of course, it isn't, or everyone would. Asking you to provide evidence for your argument isn't "whataboutism". Not only that, but you're commenting on a thread about Signal's phone number requirement . You can't inject snark into a thread and then assume some kind of moral high ground when you faceplant.

You've got to be kidding me.

The ability to store data on your device is a basic requirement of a software environment which is provided by all platforms. I'd forgive someone for not understanding that arbitrary data can be encrypted, but you claim to have some expertise in cryptography so you don't get a pass there. Someone like OWS, the developers of a privacy app, certainly don't get a pass.

It is possible, and it is easy, and you know this.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#66

Post by ColanR »

tptacek wrote: post #50
ColanR wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Drew responded to that. I thought this was a key quote: > Off the bat, let me explain that I expect a tool which claims to be secure to actually be secure. I don’t view “but that makes it harder for the average person” as an acceptable excuse. If Edward Snowden and Bruce Schneier are going to spout the virtues of the app, I expect it to actually be secure when it matters - when vulnerable people using it to e…

Which is pretty rich, because in the post where that quote originally appeared, the author recommended as an alternative to Signal a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted by default.

> in the post where that quote originally appeared, the author recommended as an alternative to Signal a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted by default

You seem really hung up on that. A transient recommendation has very little to do with stated expectation that "a tool which claims to be secure [should] actually be secure".

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#67

Post by Shared404 »

tptacek wrote: post #63
Shared404 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, the author ghost-edited it out of his post, months later. It was still removed. Would it have been better to leave a note saying it had been? Yes. Nobody is perfect however. > Matrix was years from being E2E by default when this post, and that recommendation, was written. See point B from my other comment. Edit: Add Would ... however.

I'm not sure how point B is relevant. Obviously, every message board argument about bad UX is going to feature someone saying that the UX is just fine. Telling vulnerable users to adopt a tool that is default plaintext is malpractice.

Whenever I moved my friends onto Matrix, all I had to do was hit the "Encrypt room" button for each of our rooms. They did not have to do anything else. Is this ideal? No.

Is it E2E for their other rooms? No.

Is it E2E for any usage of matrix they were going to be doing? Yes.

I also told them to be sure to hit that button if they did start any other rooms. None of them ever did, but they knew that they should if they cared about being secure.

Riot.im also did a good job of letting you know that it was unencrypted unless you hit that button.

Edit: What it boils down to, is that Matrix has been easy to set up E2E for as long as I can remember. It is also trivial to create a matrix account with no tie to your IRL self.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#68

Post by tptacek »

ColanR wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is pretty rich, because in the post where that quote originally appeared, the author recommended as an alternative to Signal a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted by default.

> in the post where that quote originally appeared, the author recommended as an alternative to Signal a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted by default You seem really hung up on that. A transient recommendation has very little to do with stated expectation that "a tool which claims to be secure [should] actually be secure".

Yes, I take secure messenger recommendations seriously; bad ones get people hurt. Tfiles have been passed around about the harm that has come to people using two other then-popular "secure" messengers.

(Matrix is very cool and I think it has a bright future as an IRC replacement and ultimately, perhaps, a Slack competitor --- something that provides opsec suitable for a commercial setting. I always come across as a Matrix hater in these threads, and I do not hate Matrix, and wish the project well.)

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#69

Post by tptacek »

ddevault wrote: post #65
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. You just claimed that it was easy for messengers to store contact databases clientside. Of course, it isn't, or everyone would. Asking you to provide evidence for your argument isn't "whataboutism". Not only that, but you're commenting on a thread about Signal's phone number requirement . You can't inject snark into a thread and then assume some kind of moral high ground when you faceplant.

You've got to be kidding me. The ability to store data on your device is a basic requirement of a software environment which is provided by all platforms. I'd forgive someone for not understanding that arbitrary data can be encrypted, but you claim to have some expertise in cryptography so you don't get a pass there. Someone like OWS, the developers of a privacy app, certainly don't get a pass. It is possible, and it…

Support your claim with evidence, like I asked earlier. Not axiomatically; with an example of a mainstream messenger other than Signal that doesn't store a database of contacts serverside. For example: do either of the two messengers you formerly recommended manage to avoid this problem? After all, it's apparently super simple to solve this. Look at where this left Tox.

Re: I don't trust Signal (2018)

#70

Post by frabbit »

redthrow wrote: post #64
frabbit wrote: post #24

Signal falls into an uncomfortable place for me. I like pre-paid cellphone plans which give me a small number of text messages, a small amount of airtime. Using these I can communicate with people when I am not near a WiFi AP. I do not want to pay for data and would prefer to use my and my friends' access points and the free wifi in the small number of commercial locations that I visit. In Canada all of the major car…

In Canada, Fido has $10/m + tax "Tablet Plan" which can be used on phones and gives you 4GB/m data

I appreciate the suggestion but had already experienced the issue that WiFi Calling did not work with my unlocked Nexus5, similar to this: https://forums.fido.ca/t5/General-Support/Wifi-Calling-worke...

As noted on this article, your compatible device must have been purchased from Fido. If you have a non-Fido device and no conflicting services, Wi-Fi Calling may work, but we can’t assure that the feature will work properly!

Without WiFi Calling enabled sending Secure Signal messages will not work. The only option left is sending a normal insecure SMS to which the message text has been input using the veneer of the "secure" Signal app.

Post reply on HN