11 ms·

Here's an idea, Signal, how about removing the requirement that everything be tied to phone numbers? BBM back in the day worked great with their unique "PINs",

Here's an idea, Signal, how about removing the requirement that everything be tied to phone numbers? BBM back in the day worked great with their unique "PINs", that could be shared by QR code, and I could reject an "add" request.

pishpash 8y ago
Exactly. Allow out of band establishment of identity. Phone numbers are more hackable, they are also not anonymous.
AndrewDavis 8y ago
As long as they have both that would be amazing. Phone authentication is better than nothing and lowers barriers to adoption. Perhaps when manually verifying an identity via the QR code add an option to generate a new id not tied to the phone number.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
badrabbit 8y ago
Second this. A phone number is tied to an individual. Even though the conversation is secure,it makes targeting easier since the attackers know who is talking to whom(comments on pgp usage and why the NSA loves pgp: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/nsa_loves_it_when_you_use_pgp/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/nsa_loves_it_when_y... ,former NSA chief hayden also made similar remarks). Let'a say a journalist is targeted by a sophisticated attacker. The attackers want everything on the phone,why just calls and messaging? They won't even attack the protocol,they'll first try putting a RAT in place which will have access to everything. Signal does not promise to protect your communication after your phone is compromised(which only makes sense) but now the attackers don't just have access to your messages but also to your contacts. They now know the journalists sources and contacts by the phone number they used.
walterbell 8y ago
Wire supports email-only registration at https://app.wire.com https://app.wire.com (from a desktop web browser). The account can then be used to login from mobile or web. This approach enables "easy" mode for casual users who prefer phone number registration, while supporting additional privacy for others.
- HostFat 8y ago
  Yep, Wire is better even just because of this possibility, but even this project is interesting :) https://briarproject.org/ https://briarproject.org/
- hardwarescope 8y ago
  As a consequence of this choice, they store all of your unencrypted contacts (or unencrypted Wire contacts) on their servers. I don't think that's "additional privacy," compared to what Signal stores (nothing, it appears). Or it is at least not as simple a question as you make it seem.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    Would appreciate a reference on this, if you have one. I don't know about the general case, but none of my mobile contacts are shared with Wire's server and most of my Wire contacts have pseudonym handles/names. If IETF efforts to standardize E2E messaging protocols can lead to interoperability between clients, we can reduce the influence of social network inertia on messenger client selection.
tptacek 8y ago
This is the "Go y u no generics" of secure messaging. The answer is always the same: Phone numbers bootstrap a workable social network for ordinary users. Signal's goal is to transform all ordinary messaging into secure messaging. Not elite secure messaging. All messaging. The most popular messaging application in the world uses phone numbers for identifiers (as, obviously, does SMS). That's the goal they've set for themselves. The simple answer for a lot of questions about Signal is that they aren't trying to solve every problem, or even many of HN's problems. If phone numbers are super-problematic for you, use Wire. Consider carefully the privacy tradeoff you'll be making, though.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  No, it's not. By requiring a phone number, Signal does not defend privacy. This is a binary question, there's not a grey area here. It doesn't matter that they're building a social network, or anything else. What matters is that it's not private so long as they require a phone number.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I'm not sure what was unclear about my summary of what Signal is doing. Here, let me put it differently for you: Signal's goal is to make all the messaging in the world that currently uses phone numbers as identifiers --- which, by a long ways, is most messaging in the world --- cryptographically secure. Hope that helps. You are welcome to have and to advocate for different goals. Please don't pretend your goals are Signal's, though.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      >Signal's goal is to make all the messaging in the world that currently uses phone numbers as identifiers --- which, by a long ways, is most messaging in the world --- cryptographically secure. This is a better explanation. However, these goals do not protect privacy. If Signal's main goal is to protect privacy, then they need to change their secondary goals to accomodate it.
monkeybutt 8y ago
I am homeless and don't have a phone number. :( But I want to use signal forfor cross platform messaging. Can't use Facebook without a testable phone number either now.

pishpash 8y ago

Exactly. Allow out of band establishment of identity. Phone numbers are more hackable, they are also not anonymous.

AndrewDavis 8y ago

As long as they have both that would be amazing. Phone authentication is better than nothing and lowers barriers to adoption. Perhaps when manually verifying an identity via the QR code add an option to generate a new id not tied to the phone number.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

badrabbit 8y ago

Second this. A phone number is tied to an individual. Even though the conversation is secure,it makes targeting easier since the attackers know who is talking to whom(comments on pgp usage and why the NSA loves pgp: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/nsa_loves_it_when_you_use_pgp/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/nsa_loves_it_when_y... ,former NSA chief hayden also made similar remarks). Let'a say a journalist is targeted by a sophisticated attacker. The attackers want everything on the phone,why just calls and messaging? They won't even attack the protocol,they'll first try putting a RAT in place which will have access to everything. Signal does not promise to protect your communication after your phone is compromised(which only makes sense) but now the attackers don't just have access to your messages but also to your contacts. They now know the journalists sources and contacts by the phone number they used.

walterbell 8y ago

Wire supports email-only registration at https://app.wire.com https://app.wire.com (from a desktop web browser). The account can then be used to login from mobile or web. This approach enables "easy" mode for casual users who prefer phone number registration, while supporting additional privacy for others.

HostFat 8y ago
Yep, Wire is better even just because of this possibility, but even this project is interesting :) https://briarproject.org/ https://briarproject.org/
hardwarescope 8y ago
As a consequence of this choice, they store all of your unencrypted contacts (or unencrypted Wire contacts) on their servers. I don't think that's "additional privacy," compared to what Signal stores (nothing, it appears). Or it is at least not as simple a question as you make it seem.
- walterbell 8y ago
  Would appreciate a reference on this, if you have one. I don't know about the general case, but none of my mobile contacts are shared with Wire's server and most of my Wire contacts have pseudonym handles/names. If IETF efforts to standardize E2E messaging protocols can lead to interoperability between clients, we can reduce the influence of social network inertia on messenger client selection.

tptacek 8y ago

This is the "Go y u no generics" of secure messaging. The answer is always the same: Phone numbers bootstrap a workable social network for ordinary users. Signal's goal is to transform all ordinary messaging into secure messaging. Not elite secure messaging. All messaging. The most popular messaging application in the world uses phone numbers for identifiers (as, obviously, does SMS). That's the goal they've set for themselves. The simple answer for a lot of questions about Signal is that they aren't trying to solve every problem, or even many of HN's problems. If phone numbers are super-problematic for you, use Wire. Consider carefully the privacy tradeoff you'll be making, though.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
No, it's not. By requiring a phone number, Signal does not defend privacy. This is a binary question, there's not a grey area here. It doesn't matter that they're building a social network, or anything else. What matters is that it's not private so long as they require a phone number.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I'm not sure what was unclear about my summary of what Signal is doing. Here, let me put it differently for you: Signal's goal is to make all the messaging in the world that currently uses phone numbers as identifiers --- which, by a long ways, is most messaging in the world --- cryptographically secure. Hope that helps. You are welcome to have and to advocate for different goals. Please don't pretend your goals are Signal's, though.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    >Signal's goal is to make all the messaging in the world that currently uses phone numbers as identifiers --- which, by a long ways, is most messaging in the world --- cryptographically secure. This is a better explanation. However, these goals do not protect privacy. If Signal's main goal is to protect privacy, then they need to change their secondary goals to accomodate it.

monkeybutt 8y ago

I am homeless and don't have a phone number. :( But I want to use signal forfor cross platform messaging. Can't use Facebook without a testable phone number either now.