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

Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

titus-stahl.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 178 posts

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#91

Post by kuschku »

hkt wrote: post #84
Cyph0n wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With such a system, you must end up trusting a certain entity; it's turtles all the way down otherwise. No system is independently secure. Similar questions include: What if a CA is compromised? What if Apple/MS bundles unwanted certs with the OS? What if Intel/AMD biases the on-die hardware RNG or other hardware crypto primitives? What if Apple/MS bundles a backdoored compiler a la "Reflections on Trusting Trust"? W…

Does Signal support reproducible builds, at least? Real question, I don't know.

Partially. They're moving towards it, but it obviously doesn't help that only half of the app is actually open source.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#92

Post by sliken »

ddevault wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #9

This topic has been beaten to death on HN over the last year (other people can provide links to discussions, with Moxie participating). I think something worth keeping in mind is that almost everyone who works in secure messaging agrees on one thing: that electronic mail is not the future of secure communication. There's no fundamental reason why that should be the case. The store-and-forward model used by SMTP could…

"non-federated" and "secure" in the same sentence is a joke. Signal's other problem is Google Play Services which has absolutely no place in a supposedly secure system.

Why? Google doesn't know who you are chatting with, or even the size of the messages you are sending. Google just sends a "wake up signal and check for messages". That's it.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#93

Post by kuschku »

Forbo wrote: post #76
stephengillie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the justifications of developers who are unfamiliar with the Intent system. Were I unaware of Intent, I would make the same design decisions.

Are intents the same as the run-time permissions? I might still be misunderstanding, but I think they have an issue open for this already: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/3983

Intents are the idea that your app doesn't directly request camera permission, for example, but instead asks the system to open a camera screen, and another app (or even your own app) can then respond to that.

This provides more choice, and reduces the amount of needed permissions.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#94

Post by sliken »

Forbo wrote: post #64
ajamesm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, am I missing something? It's my understanding that Signal is ETE encrypted. All an NSL would get you is ciphertext and metadata.

The scenario I'm imagining is that Google and OWS receive NSLs requiring them to push a modified APK that could do nefarious things.

Google can't push a new Signal APK, it's signed by OWS, not google.

3rd parties can download the signal source and compile it. Not sure if there's enough information available to product a bit identical (and thus verifiable binary).

I guess a NSL might compel OWS to push a binary specifically for a targetted user. If that's in your threat model you definitely need to take additional steps.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#95

Post by sliken »

jcrites wrote: post #81
tptacek wrote: post #9

This topic has been beaten to death on HN over the last year (other people can provide links to discussions, with Moxie participating). I think something worth keeping in mind is that almost everyone who works in secure messaging agrees on one thing: that electronic mail is not the future of secure communication. There's no fundamental reason why that should be the case. The store-and-forward model used by SMTP could…

I think you make good points, but I think email works well as a secure group communication system for private organizations, and may improve over time as a federated one. One important benefit of email is that you're not reliant on any single provider for your communication. Slack and Signal and systems like them are provided by single companies, and the continued function of those systems depends on the companies. Y…

It's all well and good to run your own mail server. The biggest problem is 99% of who you send to/receive from will be in one of the big 3 mail servers.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#96

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

sliken wrote: post #92
ddevault wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"non-federated" and "secure" in the same sentence is a joke. Signal's other problem is Google Play Services which has absolutely no place in a supposedly secure system.

Why? Google doesn't know who you are chatting with, or even the size of the messages you are sending. Google just sends a "wake up signal and check for messages". That's it.

Keep reading the thread.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#97

Post by aftbit »

majewsky wrote: post #6
rahrahrah wrote: post #3

I have the impression that Signal by now has such a great brand name that mere technical objections won't affect its growth for a very long time.

I wonder if the name of Riot will be a hindrance for widespread adoption. Most people don't like riots.

Vector.im was much better - I don't really get why they changed it.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#98

Post by sliken »

Cursuviam wrote: post #18
exstudent2 wrote: post #10

A question I've had about Signal is what is stopping Apple from modifying and rebuilding the source with a backdoor in it? Is this technically possible (seems like it would be since they control distribution of the binary to devices)? The article is correct in stating that web based chat is inherently insecure but it seems all iOS apps are also inherently insecure. I'm by no means an expert though so would love to he…

What's to stop them from modifying the OS itself to spy on you? On a closed platform, you don't have peace of mind from spying.

If you care that much, just run your own OS. Many android phones have quite a few options available.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#99

Post by tmptmp »

ajamesm wrote: post #54
Forbo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also affect security depending on what jurisdiction the servers fall under. Federation means that while it may be illegal to run the service in, say, China, it can be run elsewhere without those concerns. This is becoming more apparent with the widespread use of National Security Letters.

Sorry, am I missing something? It's my understanding that Signal is ETE encrypted. All an NSL would get you is ciphertext and metadata.

While we don't know what and how much metadata OWS servers keep, we must understand that too much metadata can still be a very bad thing that can enable a 3 letter agency to discover things about users.

Re: Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future

#100

Post by upofadown »

sliken wrote: post #95
jcrites wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make good points, but I think email works well as a secure group communication system for private organizations, and may improve over time as a federated one. One important benefit of email is that you're not reliant on any single provider for your communication. Slack and Signal and systems like them are provided by single companies, and the continued function of those systems depends on the companies. Y…

It's all well and good to run your own mail server. The biggest problem is 99% of who you send to/receive from will be in one of the big 3 mail servers.

I just had a quick look at a email list I run for a local sporting organization and it looks like the big 3 are less than 50% of addresses. There were a lot of local ISP addresses, businesses and educational organizations.
Post reply on HN