6 ms·

I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. "You need to open TCP 31337 and all UDP ports in order for Signal to work." Emphasis mine. http://su

I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. "You need to open TCP 31337 and all UDP ports in order for Signal to work." Emphasis mine. http://support.whispersystems.org/hc/en-us/articles/213697218-Which-TCP-UDP-ports-need-to-be-available- http://support.whispersystems.org/hc/en-us/articles/21369721... When I first read that I was sure that must largely apply to the calling (voip) features, but testing showed me I was wrong. I couldn't even make messaging work through a firewall so now I sourly use Telegram instead (no private chats by default in telegram??).

lqdc13 10y ago
No private chats at all for Windows/Linux. It is actually insane that (unless I'm missing something) there is no usable/accessible trustworthy end2end encryption chat program that has both mobile and desktop clients. Note: Telegram desktop alternative apps have major usability issues at least on Linux. Edit: Also, many people refuse to install/use Chrome for various reasons, so even if you don't have to open ports, this still won't be a solution.
- dmix 10y ago
  > Edit: Also, many people refuse to install/use Chrome for various reasons, so even if you don't have to open ports, this still won't be a solution. Let's be honest, there aren't many. Chromium is enough to please the majority of OSS people. And if they are not using Chrome for 'security' reasons they are very misinformed.
  - mike-cardwell 10y ago
    I don't use Chrome or Chromium because I'm not happy with advertising companies deciding how the web should develop. Companies who's very survival is based on being able to extract information about users, being empowered to pick and choose what goes into modern web browsers due to market share? Great idea, with no possible long term damage.
    - dmix 10y ago
      Better not watch any TV shows, read newspapers, or use any search engines either then. They are all financed by ads. /s Chromium is the best product on the market. I honestly don't see what negative influence Google's business model has on it. I use Duckduckgo as my default search engine and Google doesn't do any monitoring/tracking in Chrome, despite what most people think.
      - mike-cardwell 10y ago
        Nice straw man. Firefox is the best product on the market. Google makes money from tracking people on the web. They will not introduce or develop new technology to their web browser which hits that revenue stream hard. By using Chrome or Chromium you are giving them market share and therefore power to shape the future of the web. The future of the web under Googles custodian is more advertising, more tracking and less privacy. It's pretty obvious.
      - tripzilch 10y ago
        Hey everyone has their own preferences. I try out a different browser every once in a while, or you may lose out on a feature that the "other" side has, or maybe a degradation that is not. Way back when, the great eagle king of browsers used to be Opera, no competition :) But those days are long gone (and after they fired the Presto team, the only similarity today is the name of the company, don't even bother). Currently am using Firefox. Recently gave Chromium a good try for a month or so, for my personal experiences, right now best product on the market is Firefox. The address bar / search bar in Chromium is just inferior--you only get ~five autocompletes from your history and bookmarks, total. That basically means there's a reasonable chance the thing you're looking for will appear, but it's not really something you can rely on to navigate the personal knowledge base of bookmarks and history. Not talking about search suggestions btw. The other thing is Firefox Android supports Add-ons, so you can have uBlock and Ghostery on your phone (not even sure why anyone would even begin to consider a browser that doesn't support adblocking?) and Firefox Sync works well, to connect to the desktop and back (gave Pocket a try, didn't like it). I also use DDG as default search in Firefox, very useful with the bang syntaxes, more powerful than Google (which is just a !g away anyhow). Also in Chromium, so the address bar feels more familiar and somewhat makes up for its lack of power :)
  - wtallis 10y ago
    Show me where to get a NoScript replacement and I'll consider that Chrome or Chromium might have a clear advantage in security. But if you try to point me at an extension that only blocks JavaScript based on URLs, I'll consider you very misinformed.
    - exo762 10y ago
      This is a misdirection. Nobody is arguing for switching to Chromium as primary browser. One can use it as app framework for Signal.
    - twr 10y ago
      NoScript does more than block JavaScript, but if that's all you're interested in, uBlock Origin can block inline and external scripts on a global or site-specific basis. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-quick-guide https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu...
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    It's quite a battery killer as well. For a simple IM app, you lose hours of battery life.
- Dolores12 10y ago
  OTR plugin[1] has been around for years. I have used it on top of icq, aim, skype and jabber. Also there are few clients for android that support jabber & otr. [1] https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
  - lqdc13 10y ago
    Try to get an average user to copy their private keys onto android from their adium/pidgin install... Even just using adium with other people using adium with the plugin had all kinds of usability issues for me.
  - mynewtb 10y ago
    OTR does not support offline messages which makes it utterly useless in the modern, mobile world. OMEMO is what it's at.
- ahalam 10y ago
  You will find https:///www.wire.com/ https:///www.wire.com/ interesting. e2e encrypted, clients for Windows, Mac, Android & iOS. And chats are synched between all your clients. Also .. no phone number required to sign up; use your email.
  - lqdc13 10y ago
    Missing Linux native, but that might be too much to ask. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a try. Do you know if it's open source or at least gone through an audit?
    - ahalam 10y ago
      The crypto modules are indeed open source. https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp I don't know whether they have been formally audited.
      - pritambaral 10y ago
        That would be the source of some crypto code, not necessarily the code the app itself uses. Since the app is closed, there's no way to verify.
  - LeoPanthera 10y ago
    How is client sync possible with e2e?
    - lqdc13 10y ago
      Why wouldn't it be possible? The app knows who is sending to who and which devices are linked.
      - ianpurton 10y ago
        Because if it's end to end encrypted each device would either need the same private key to decode the messages or each message is encrypted with each devices public key. This would require some kind of key exchange i.e. scanning bar codes.
- akerro 10y ago
  qTox, µTox and Antox do the job. Antox is very batter hungry, but that was it comes with fully decentralized network (DHT nodes setup by volunteers) with complete end to end encryption. https://tox.chat/ https://tox.chat/
  - bisby 10y ago
    does tox have device syncing yet? I usually set my phone down out of reach when at a computer, but still need to receive messages on the go. I have antox and qTox both installed, but Im not going to convince other people to switch if it's not going to be in a usable state.
- ScarZy 10y ago
  Am I missing something? Why would you want to use an alternative app for Telegram on Linux? Their own app works a dream for me.
  - lqdc13 10y ago
    No encryption which defeats the purpose of using it.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  The UX of the official Linux desktop Telegram client is really nice, IMHO. Simple and snappy even on a low-powered netbook. Syncs perfectly and immediately across devices. Copy/paste/drag/drop of images and files works very well. I also like the option-on-hover "drop here to quickly send compressed photo / drop here to send without compression" for its ease of use. Although given I had to explain some people, less curious / techsavvy people may not discover it or notice it. But yeah, no encryption to speak of. So I'm no longer going to recommend Telegram over Whatsapp :) Just pointing out how much I like the UX of the Telegram client, no reason why you couldn't have that on a properly encrypted platform, after all :)
qznc 10y ago
Watch for this issue: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/454 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/454
- click170 10y ago
  Thanks. I hadnt seen that. That last comment makes me wonder if they understand the objections being raised in that ticket though. 8443 != 443
simoncion 10y ago
> I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. ... I couldn't even make messaging work through a firewall... That's really, really strange. I sit behind an IPv4 NATting router whose policy is "default REJECT unless the packet is related to a connection that conntrack knows about". [0] The device also runs UPnP, but Signal never attempts to forward any ports. Full disclosure: I have good IPv6 service, but textsecure-service-ca.whispersystems.org doesn't have any AAAA records, so I don't see what that would have to do with anything. My friends and I can use both Signal text and voice messaging without issue. Just what sort of obscenely restrictive firewall are you behind? [0] You know, a typical NAT firewall configuration.
- mellamoyo 10y ago
  > Just what sort of obscenely restrictive firewall are you behind? Many companies block outbound on non-well known ports, for various reasons. tcp/443 is almost always available though.
  - simoncion 10y ago
    > Many companies block outbound on non-well known ports... Mmmhmm. Yeah, I'm aware of that. :) However, click170 made no mention of a corporate firewall. He said: > I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. Which is dramatically at odds with my and my friends experience with Signal; namely that it passes through firewalls with no configuration required. If he would have mentioned that it was a corporate firewall that he was trying to get through, I expect his comment would have been much less popular, and much less confusing. :)

lqdc13 10y ago

No private chats at all for Windows/Linux. It is actually insane that (unless I'm missing something) there is no usable/accessible trustworthy end2end encryption chat program that has both mobile and desktop clients. Note: Telegram desktop alternative apps have major usability issues at least on Linux. Edit: Also, many people refuse to install/use Chrome for various reasons, so even if you don't have to open ports, this still won't be a solution.

dmix 10y ago
> Edit: Also, many people refuse to install/use Chrome for various reasons, so even if you don't have to open ports, this still won't be a solution. Let's be honest, there aren't many. Chromium is enough to please the majority of OSS people. And if they are not using Chrome for 'security' reasons they are very misinformed.
- mike-cardwell 10y ago
  I don't use Chrome or Chromium because I'm not happy with advertising companies deciding how the web should develop. Companies who's very survival is based on being able to extract information about users, being empowered to pick and choose what goes into modern web browsers due to market share? Great idea, with no possible long term damage.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Better not watch any TV shows, read newspapers, or use any search engines either then. They are all financed by ads. /s Chromium is the best product on the market. I honestly don't see what negative influence Google's business model has on it. I use Duckduckgo as my default search engine and Google doesn't do any monitoring/tracking in Chrome, despite what most people think.
    - mike-cardwell 10y ago
      Nice straw man. Firefox is the best product on the market. Google makes money from tracking people on the web. They will not introduce or develop new technology to their web browser which hits that revenue stream hard. By using Chrome or Chromium you are giving them market share and therefore power to shape the future of the web. The future of the web under Googles custodian is more advertising, more tracking and less privacy. It's pretty obvious.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      Hey everyone has their own preferences. I try out a different browser every once in a while, or you may lose out on a feature that the "other" side has, or maybe a degradation that is not. Way back when, the great eagle king of browsers used to be Opera, no competition :) But those days are long gone (and after they fired the Presto team, the only similarity today is the name of the company, don't even bother). Currently am using Firefox. Recently gave Chromium a good try for a month or so, for my personal experiences, right now best product on the market is Firefox. The address bar / search bar in Chromium is just inferior--you only get ~five autocompletes from your history and bookmarks, total. That basically means there's a reasonable chance the thing you're looking for will appear, but it's not really something you can rely on to navigate the personal knowledge base of bookmarks and history. Not talking about search suggestions btw. The other thing is Firefox Android supports Add-ons, so you can have uBlock and Ghostery on your phone (not even sure why anyone would even begin to consider a browser that doesn't support adblocking?) and Firefox Sync works well, to connect to the desktop and back (gave Pocket a try, didn't like it). I also use DDG as default search in Firefox, very useful with the bang syntaxes, more powerful than Google (which is just a !g away anyhow). Also in Chromium, so the address bar feels more familiar and somewhat makes up for its lack of power :)
- wtallis 10y ago
  Show me where to get a NoScript replacement and I'll consider that Chrome or Chromium might have a clear advantage in security. But if you try to point me at an extension that only blocks JavaScript based on URLs, I'll consider you very misinformed.
  - exo762 10y ago
    This is a misdirection. Nobody is arguing for switching to Chromium as primary browser. One can use it as app framework for Signal.
  - twr 10y ago
    NoScript does more than block JavaScript, but if that's all you're interested in, uBlock Origin can block inline and external scripts on a global or site-specific basis. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-quick-guide https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu...
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  It's quite a battery killer as well. For a simple IM app, you lose hours of battery life.
Dolores12 10y ago
OTR plugin[1] has been around for years. I have used it on top of icq, aim, skype and jabber. Also there are few clients for android that support jabber & otr. [1] https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
- lqdc13 10y ago
  Try to get an average user to copy their private keys onto android from their adium/pidgin install... Even just using adium with other people using adium with the plugin had all kinds of usability issues for me.
- mynewtb 10y ago
  OTR does not support offline messages which makes it utterly useless in the modern, mobile world. OMEMO is what it's at.
ahalam 10y ago
You will find https:///www.wire.com/ https:///www.wire.com/ interesting. e2e encrypted, clients for Windows, Mac, Android & iOS. And chats are synched between all your clients. Also .. no phone number required to sign up; use your email.
- lqdc13 10y ago
  Missing Linux native, but that might be too much to ask. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a try. Do you know if it's open source or at least gone through an audit?
  - ahalam 10y ago
    The crypto modules are indeed open source. https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp I don't know whether they have been formally audited.
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      That would be the source of some crypto code, not necessarily the code the app itself uses. Since the app is closed, there's no way to verify.
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  How is client sync possible with e2e?
  - lqdc13 10y ago
    Why wouldn't it be possible? The app knows who is sending to who and which devices are linked.
    - ianpurton 10y ago
      Because if it's end to end encrypted each device would either need the same private key to decode the messages or each message is encrypted with each devices public key. This would require some kind of key exchange i.e. scanning bar codes.
akerro 10y ago
qTox, µTox and Antox do the job. Antox is very batter hungry, but that was it comes with fully decentralized network (DHT nodes setup by volunteers) with complete end to end encryption. https://tox.chat/ https://tox.chat/
- bisby 10y ago
  does tox have device syncing yet? I usually set my phone down out of reach when at a computer, but still need to receive messages on the go. I have antox and qTox both installed, but Im not going to convince other people to switch if it's not going to be in a usable state.
ScarZy 10y ago
Am I missing something? Why would you want to use an alternative app for Telegram on Linux? Their own app works a dream for me.
- lqdc13 10y ago
  No encryption which defeats the purpose of using it.
tripzilch 10y ago
The UX of the official Linux desktop Telegram client is really nice, IMHO. Simple and snappy even on a low-powered netbook. Syncs perfectly and immediately across devices. Copy/paste/drag/drop of images and files works very well. I also like the option-on-hover "drop here to quickly send compressed photo / drop here to send without compression" for its ease of use. Although given I had to explain some people, less curious / techsavvy people may not discover it or notice it. But yeah, no encryption to speak of. So I'm no longer going to recommend Telegram over Whatsapp :) Just pointing out how much I like the UX of the Telegram client, no reason why you couldn't have that on a properly encrypted platform, after all :)

qznc 10y ago

Watch for this issue: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/454 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/454

click170 10y ago
Thanks. I hadnt seen that. That last comment makes me wonder if they understand the objections being raised in that ticket though. 8443 != 443

simoncion 10y ago

> I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. ... I couldn't even make messaging work through a firewall... That's really, really strange. I sit behind an IPv4 NATting router whose policy is "default REJECT unless the packet is related to a connection that conntrack knows about". [0] The device also runs UPnP, but Signal never attempts to forward any ports. Full disclosure: I have good IPv6 service, but textsecure-service-ca.whispersystems.org doesn't have any AAAA records, so I don't see what that would have to do with anything. My friends and I can use both Signal text and voice messaging without issue. Just what sort of obscenely restrictive firewall are you behind? [0] You know, a typical NAT firewall configuration.

mellamoyo 10y ago
> Just what sort of obscenely restrictive firewall are you behind? Many companies block outbound on non-well known ports, for various reasons. tcp/443 is almost always available though.
- simoncion 10y ago
  > Many companies block outbound on non-well known ports... Mmmhmm. Yeah, I'm aware of that. :) However, click170 made no mention of a corporate firewall. He said: > I just wish Signal was easier to get through a firewall. Which is dramatically at odds with my and my friends experience with Signal; namely that it passes through firewalls with no configuration required. If he would have mentioned that it was a corporate firewall that he was trying to get through, I expect his comment would have been much less popular, and much less confusing. :)