10 ms·

I'm not a cryptographer. I .. am reasonably sure that no one would take me for a hipster. But two issues - or call it 'differences in opinion' - in that articl

I'm not a cryptographer. I .. am reasonably sure that no one would take me for a hipster. But two issues - or call it 'differences in opinion' - in that article are relevant for me: The inability to use the service without a mobile number and federation. I understand the rationale behind the former ("It's easier"), but I don't understand why it is mandatory. I could've been 1283783127356128531312 on Signal and optionally add my phone number to that identity for others to find me (and optionally let Signal use my contacts to search for someone). That could even be the default, opt-out during registration. But right now, I'm basically using my phone number, which I really hate to do. Federation is probably hard to get right, and looking at Eric Lippert's "Every feature idea starts with -100 points" rationale I guess it is understandable that this isn't a thing. But I don't want to join another silo, even if it's the best of the crop so far. For users like me, Signal, WhatsApp and yes, Telegram are basically the same thing, come with the same set of limitations and I feel that it is worth pointing them out from time to time. Just as the article did (I'm not agreeing with everything in there btw.) People jump in to defend Signal whenever this comes up, but maybe that isn't necessary. Signal is a great project and most criticism I've seen here so far is not 'Signal sucks', it is usually more a long the line of 'Signal is not for me' and I have a hard time understanding why that is debatable or why this shouldn't be a valid position.

sandervenema 10y ago
Agree. I'm not a cryptographer and never claimed to be either. -- and I think it would be difficult to mistake me for a hipster. For one, I don't have that snazzy majestic beard.. Anyway, on to the point. :) Yes, the phone number thing is a policy decision by the Signal people. As I write in my article, it's maybe marginally easier to get connected using phone numbers, but I may want to communicate via Signal with someone I don't want to give my phone number to. Handing out personal phone numbers on the willy nilly is not something I'm comfortable with. There's no reason why we couldn't have some other identifier, possibly easy to remember to connect us to via Signal. So this was a policy decision by the Signal people. Federation is indeed hard to get right, but I think with proper versioning, and various teams keeping their software up-to-date and close to the reference paper/the Signal protocol, I see no reason why it cannot be overcome. For XMPP/Jabber it also works quite well.
- pvg 10y ago
  Moxie has written at some length about the problems they've had with federation in the specific case of their experience with Signal and also more generally about federation and its potential impact of the development of network technologies. Your answer to all that is "I heard it's hard but really, versioning/XMPP and also, it's not hard". How well has 'proper versioning' worked out for SSL/TLS? Federation hasn't really 'worked out' for XMPP. Never mind anything substantial in response to Moxie's writing. People calling your piece 'hipsterism' are being very, very polite.
  - Arathorn 10y ago
    It's unquestionable that federation and decentralisation increase complexity significantly. For context, prior to Matrix the Matrix team used to write commercial comms app silos for telcos - and then we had the epiphany that building silos is harmful to end-users and the industry as a whole, and shifted entirely to the longer-term mission to build an entirely decentralised & open alternative. Despite the fact that we already had an entirely functional centralised implementation, it took about 1.5x longer to create Matrix. And if had been starting from an entirely clean slate, I suspect it'd have been 3-4x longer. However, we very strongly feel that the resulting freedom and choice from the resulting open ecosystem is worth the additional complexity. Users can choose any service provider without compromising interoperability. They can run their own servers. They can write their own clients. They can write their own servers. They can choose precisely who they trust with their data. They can contribute to the spec and help define the ecosystem. They aren't forced into trusting a provider who may be trustworthy today, but who knows in future. I believe Moxie's viewpoint is that privacy is paramount, and any complexity which could introduce bugs which could undermine security/privacy is anathema. From a cryptography dev perspective, this makes perfect sense. On the other hand, Matrix believes that there is more to life than just privacy, though (as critical as privacy is, of course) - and it is possible to have both privacy and freedom. Yes, it slows down the rate of development a bit. Yes, it means you have to think much more carefully about layering the protocol to allow the different layers to evolve as independently and efficiently as possible, with the necessary mechanisms (both technical and organisational) to upgrade and lock out obsolete clients and servers. Yes, it means there's more complexity, where bugs could hide. Yes, it means that you may not be able to force the world to upgrade as rapidly as a silo might in the face of a critical security issue. However, we think it's worth it.
b2600 10y ago
I agree about the user name vs phone number. Federation issue was addressed here[1] for what it's worth. [1] https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
tptacek 10y ago
Signal and Telegram are not the same thing. Telegram has, according to Reuters, been actively compromised by people working for oppressive regimes (Iran, in particular). If you're just using a secure messenger on general principles, it doesn't matter much which one you use. Probably WhatsApp is your best choice. But if you actually need secure messaging, you should be using the safest secure messenger. Since we don't know who's reading these recommendations and what they're doing with them, we should employ the precautionary principle, and be clear with people that systems like Telegram, while probably fine for keeping messages out of the hands of jealous ex-partners, are simply not up to the task of protecting messages from serious, well-funded adversaries.
- darklajid 10y ago
  I don't think we disagree. If you need secure messaging, go with Signal. I'd agree (with less credentials to back it up compared to people that work in that industry cough). I said that for me they are basically equivalent. And for now I pick Telegram as the best compromise I'm going to get (still using my mobile number, still a silo, crappy encryption vs usability and cross-platform/multi-device support). You seem to say that people should cheer for Signal so that people that NEED the secure messaging features aren't lured into the wrong direction. That makes sense. But if someone reads HN for secure messaging recommendations .. I kinda expect them to read more than a single comment and do a bit of research. People are pointing out that Signal doesn't satisfy some requirements for their individual needs. It's not a "You shouldn't use Signal" (which would be bad), it's a "You might not like Signal, if .. " listing reasons like federation and identity. In this setting here I think that's fair and reasonable. No harm done, no danger for a random person stumbling upon these discussions and dismissing Signal because a random person online said that it doesn't support federation. Signal is a nice project, I'd recommend it for everyone that has hard requirements for their secure messaging solution. I still don't want to use it myself and feel that it's fair to point out why Signal cannot cater to everyone. That doesn't harm Signal or its global perception, I think.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Look, that all makes perfect sense, and apart from the fact that I think Telegram is a deeply problematic project, I don't generally care what people use for casual communication. I use Slack, FFS! But please remember the article we're actually commenting on starts like this: One of the things I do is cryptography and infosec training for investigative journalists who have a need to keep either their sources and communications confidential so they can more safely do their work in the public interest.
Mz 10y ago
You are not a cryptographer and not a hipster and apparently never had your life on the line in a way that made it imperative that your communications not be associated with your phone number. Whether you are a journalist or an abused individual hiding from the ex spouse/parents/whomever that abused you, if your life and/or the lives of other people are on the line, this detail (and perhaps others, as I am not super technically literate) is a serious deal breaker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with some kind of vague, hand-wavy preference, like preferring red phones over blue ones because you like the color red. It has to do with "If I use this, will I or others end up dead, maimed, in jail for a lot of years or otherwise basically have one's life utterly ruined?" Like that movie scene where they blow up everything "because you made a phone call" (Enemy of the State, IIRC).
- darklajid 10y ago
  I'm .. confused. Aren't you basically just confirming my position, with stronger examples? Are we on the same side or do you disagree with my comment? I mean, I think I wrote[1] that I really dislike the connection between identity and phone numbers. I happen to use Telegram at the moment (I have exactly 5 contacts, one of those is the Telegram 'we updated the software' bot, another one is a random 'Sticker' bot), but I'm an xmpp guy deep down. Matrix looks promising, I just need to find the time/energy to make the switch (and convert the 3 'real' Telegram contacts). If you look at the thread with tptacek I do have to agree that the safest bet probably is Signal right now - if it leaks the phone number or not. I don't have to like it though... 1: If you look at my comments it seems that I repeat that in every other one, but English isn't my native language. Please blame the language barrier first, then blame the human behind the message.
  - Mz 10y ago
    Signal is a great project and most criticism I've seen here so far is not 'Signal sucks', it is usually more a long the line of 'Signal is not for me' and I have a hard time understanding why that is debatable or why this shouldn't be a valid position. To me, remarks like this one read as "Eh, if Signal is not to your tastes, no big, but no reason to trash it either." But the article and I and others here are saying, "Yeah, no. This is not the same thing as picking a phone because you like red more than blue. This is more like refusing the blue one because it explodes sometimes when you answer it." For people for whom lives are on the line, this goes a lot deeper than personal preference.
petre 10y ago
Wire can use e-mails or phone nunbers for IDs, so you can use the same ID on multiple devices. But the mobile UI is worse than Signal's and it's also it's not federated. The source for the clients is on Github. It does have desktop apps for Windiws and Mac and a web app that works in most modern browsers. It's in many ways better than Skype. You don't have to link it to your phone in order to send messages - just use an e-mail account. It's also run by a Swiss company, so the servers might just be outside of the US.
- Siimteller 10y ago
  Servers ARE outside of the US. All in EU.

sandervenema 10y ago

Agree. I'm not a cryptographer and never claimed to be either. -- and I think it would be difficult to mistake me for a hipster. For one, I don't have that snazzy majestic beard.. Anyway, on to the point. :) Yes, the phone number thing is a policy decision by the Signal people. As I write in my article, it's maybe marginally easier to get connected using phone numbers, but I may want to communicate via Signal with someone I don't want to give my phone number to. Handing out personal phone numbers on the willy nilly is not something I'm comfortable with. There's no reason why we couldn't have some other identifier, possibly easy to remember to connect us to via Signal. So this was a policy decision by the Signal people. Federation is indeed hard to get right, but I think with proper versioning, and various teams keeping their software up-to-date and close to the reference paper/the Signal protocol, I see no reason why it cannot be overcome. For XMPP/Jabber it also works quite well.

pvg 10y ago
Moxie has written at some length about the problems they've had with federation in the specific case of their experience with Signal and also more generally about federation and its potential impact of the development of network technologies. Your answer to all that is "I heard it's hard but really, versioning/XMPP and also, it's not hard". How well has 'proper versioning' worked out for SSL/TLS? Federation hasn't really 'worked out' for XMPP. Never mind anything substantial in response to Moxie's writing. People calling your piece 'hipsterism' are being very, very polite.
- Arathorn 10y ago
  It's unquestionable that federation and decentralisation increase complexity significantly. For context, prior to Matrix the Matrix team used to write commercial comms app silos for telcos - and then we had the epiphany that building silos is harmful to end-users and the industry as a whole, and shifted entirely to the longer-term mission to build an entirely decentralised & open alternative. Despite the fact that we already had an entirely functional centralised implementation, it took about 1.5x longer to create Matrix. And if had been starting from an entirely clean slate, I suspect it'd have been 3-4x longer. However, we very strongly feel that the resulting freedom and choice from the resulting open ecosystem is worth the additional complexity. Users can choose any service provider without compromising interoperability. They can run their own servers. They can write their own clients. They can write their own servers. They can choose precisely who they trust with their data. They can contribute to the spec and help define the ecosystem. They aren't forced into trusting a provider who may be trustworthy today, but who knows in future. I believe Moxie's viewpoint is that privacy is paramount, and any complexity which could introduce bugs which could undermine security/privacy is anathema. From a cryptography dev perspective, this makes perfect sense. On the other hand, Matrix believes that there is more to life than just privacy, though (as critical as privacy is, of course) - and it is possible to have both privacy and freedom. Yes, it slows down the rate of development a bit. Yes, it means you have to think much more carefully about layering the protocol to allow the different layers to evolve as independently and efficiently as possible, with the necessary mechanisms (both technical and organisational) to upgrade and lock out obsolete clients and servers. Yes, it means there's more complexity, where bugs could hide. Yes, it means that you may not be able to force the world to upgrade as rapidly as a silo might in the face of a critical security issue. However, we think it's worth it.

b2600 10y ago

I agree about the user name vs phone number. Federation issue was addressed here[1] for what it's worth. [1] https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

tptacek 10y ago

Signal and Telegram are not the same thing. Telegram has, according to Reuters, been actively compromised by people working for oppressive regimes (Iran, in particular). If you're just using a secure messenger on general principles, it doesn't matter much which one you use. Probably WhatsApp is your best choice. But if you actually need secure messaging, you should be using the safest secure messenger. Since we don't know who's reading these recommendations and what they're doing with them, we should employ the precautionary principle, and be clear with people that systems like Telegram, while probably fine for keeping messages out of the hands of jealous ex-partners, are simply not up to the task of protecting messages from serious, well-funded adversaries.

darklajid 10y ago
I don't think we disagree. If you need secure messaging, go with Signal. I'd agree (with less credentials to back it up compared to people that work in that industry cough). I said that for me they are basically equivalent. And for now I pick Telegram as the best compromise I'm going to get (still using my mobile number, still a silo, crappy encryption vs usability and cross-platform/multi-device support). You seem to say that people should cheer for Signal so that people that NEED the secure messaging features aren't lured into the wrong direction. That makes sense. But if someone reads HN for secure messaging recommendations .. I kinda expect them to read more than a single comment and do a bit of research. People are pointing out that Signal doesn't satisfy some requirements for their individual needs. It's not a "You shouldn't use Signal" (which would be bad), it's a "You might not like Signal, if .. " listing reasons like federation and identity. In this setting here I think that's fair and reasonable. No harm done, no danger for a random person stumbling upon these discussions and dismissing Signal because a random person online said that it doesn't support federation. Signal is a nice project, I'd recommend it for everyone that has hard requirements for their secure messaging solution. I still don't want to use it myself and feel that it's fair to point out why Signal cannot cater to everyone. That doesn't harm Signal or its global perception, I think.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Look, that all makes perfect sense, and apart from the fact that I think Telegram is a deeply problematic project, I don't generally care what people use for casual communication. I use Slack, FFS! But please remember the article we're actually commenting on starts like this: One of the things I do is cryptography and infosec training for investigative journalists who have a need to keep either their sources and communications confidential so they can more safely do their work in the public interest.

Mz 10y ago

You are not a cryptographer and not a hipster and apparently never had your life on the line in a way that made it imperative that your communications not be associated with your phone number. Whether you are a journalist or an abused individual hiding from the ex spouse/parents/whomever that abused you, if your life and/or the lives of other people are on the line, this detail (and perhaps others, as I am not super technically literate) is a serious deal breaker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with some kind of vague, hand-wavy preference, like preferring red phones over blue ones because you like the color red. It has to do with "If I use this, will I or others end up dead, maimed, in jail for a lot of years or otherwise basically have one's life utterly ruined?" Like that movie scene where they blow up everything "because you made a phone call" (Enemy of the State, IIRC).

darklajid 10y ago
I'm .. confused. Aren't you basically just confirming my position, with stronger examples? Are we on the same side or do you disagree with my comment? I mean, I think I wrote[1] that I really dislike the connection between identity and phone numbers. I happen to use Telegram at the moment (I have exactly 5 contacts, one of those is the Telegram 'we updated the software' bot, another one is a random 'Sticker' bot), but I'm an xmpp guy deep down. Matrix looks promising, I just need to find the time/energy to make the switch (and convert the 3 'real' Telegram contacts). If you look at the thread with tptacek I do have to agree that the safest bet probably is Signal right now - if it leaks the phone number or not. I don't have to like it though... 1: If you look at my comments it seems that I repeat that in every other one, but English isn't my native language. Please blame the language barrier first, then blame the human behind the message.
- Mz 10y ago
  Signal is a great project and most criticism I've seen here so far is not 'Signal sucks', it is usually more a long the line of 'Signal is not for me' and I have a hard time understanding why that is debatable or why this shouldn't be a valid position. To me, remarks like this one read as "Eh, if Signal is not to your tastes, no big, but no reason to trash it either." But the article and I and others here are saying, "Yeah, no. This is not the same thing as picking a phone because you like red more than blue. This is more like refusing the blue one because it explodes sometimes when you answer it." For people for whom lives are on the line, this goes a lot deeper than personal preference.

petre 10y ago

Wire can use e-mails or phone nunbers for IDs, so you can use the same ID on multiple devices. But the mobile UI is worse than Signal's and it's also it's not federated. The source for the clients is on Github. It does have desktop apps for Windiws and Mac and a web app that works in most modern browsers. It's in many ways better than Skype. You don't have to link it to your phone in order to send messages - just use an e-mail account. It's also run by a Swiss company, so the servers might just be outside of the US.

Siimteller 10y ago
Servers ARE outside of the US. All in EU.