Users of the Signal messaging app got hit by a hacker attack. We analyze what happened and why the attack demonstrates that Signal is reliable.

  • electric_nan
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Lots of food for thought there, though I must say I’m not fully convinced, particularly by the alternatives. In my experience matrix and xmpp), there are things that keep me from recommending them to my friends. The writeup mentions client fragmentation, which causes problems with encryption. That is a huge problem in this context. Ease of use is another, which may be dismissed by someone tech savvy, but shouldn’t be ignored in the broader context of activist communication.

    On that note, self-hosting is a double-edged sword. Are most activists equipped with the knowledge/skills to implement and maintain a hardened secure server? Using somebody else’s server requires trust.

    Those points in mind, I also think we can’t forget threat modeling. For as widespread as Signal is, there haven’t been to my knowledge any confirmed reports or leaks indicating its compromise. In contrast, we have court documents that show very little information gained from subpoenas to Signal. My feeling is that Signal is a good option for a lot of people. Phone number identifier is not good, but you can mitigate by registering with another number. If your threat model includes federal agencies, then you should be worried about your device being compromised, in which case it doesn’t matter which app you’re using. Also, don’t carry your phone to actions no matter what app you’re using.

    Edit: d’oh! Meant this to be a reply to the post below, that links to dessalines’ github Signal takedown.

    • linzilla
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Fragmentation offers tremendous opportunity to offset the tyranny of some agencies not bound by the rule of law. “Divide and conquer” works in tech too

      • electric_nan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m confused by this statement. On the one hand you seem to say that fragmentation is good. On the other hand ‘divide and conquer’ suggests the negative consequences of such fragmentation.