8 ms·
If the app and service were not involved the only reason to mention them is to create doubt they are secure.
by spullara 10y ago
If the app and service were not involved the only reason to mention them is to create doubt they are secure.
- rising-sky 10y ago"The strongest chain will break at it's weakest point". If I as a user, believe that a sequence of actions, from my keystrokes to voice input, which I perceive to be a direct interaction with a secure app are in fact insecure, then is the app really secure? I guess that's the question being posed here
- spullara 10y agoAlso make sure no one is looking over your shoulder or listening nearby. "Signal encryption bypasssed by new look over shoulder attack."
- accountface 10y agoI think it's a little different when the person "looking over your shoulder" is omnipotent.
- ballenf 10y agoThere is a balance -- one is reminded of the constant "data charged may apply" footnote to so many free services. The same goes here: you really shouldn't tout your impenetrable security without also informing users that things external to the service may undermine its utility.
- daenney 10y agoNot necessarily. To a lot of people encryption is "using Signal" or "using WhatsApp". They don't necessarily understand that these are distinct things and that their communications could still be captured by virtue of simply using a phone.
- accountface 10y agoThe OS these services run on isn't secure, so wouldn't these services by definition not be secure?
- whatdiditsay88 10y agoExactly. If they can read your messages, it's not secure. You're being really picky in focusing on how Signal itself wasn't hacked. What's the difference if they can crack the OS or some other app itself and have access? A very small technical argument is the difference. When the outcome is still "Oh hey, guess what though, they can still read those messages." It's like a thief breaks into your house, reads your mail, and you're arguing the Post Office wasn't hacked, no big deal!