6 ms·

I don't like Signal's stance on forks (which is that they are allowed but may not use the official Signal network) but it hardly has identical drawbacks. Signal

by chalst 6y ago

I don't like Signal's stance on forks (which is that they are allowed but may not use the official Signal network) but it hardly has identical drawbacks. Signal is open source, can be downloaded as an official APK and can be run on LineageOS without Google Play (notifications do require some emulation of Play Services calls, but that can be provided using MicroG).

dessant 6y ago
> forks ... may not use the official Signal network Is it technically prevented or just frowned upon? The former would be strange, because fixing a bug in your own private fork would also exclude you from the network.
- csunbird 6y ago
  I actually do not find this unreasonable, maintaining and providing backwards support everyone's custom version with their own quirks would be a big technical burden.
  - dessant 6y ago
    Allowing modding and forks does not mean you have to provide support for them.
    - lucb1e 6y ago
      Exactly this. You don't have to prohibit homosexuality just because you don't want to deal with adding support to your database of married citizens / prohibit forks because you don't want to support them. The argument makes no sense. I can't decide if Moxie is a double agent with street cred or honestly trying to do good here.
      - lrvick 6y ago
        I am generally a pretty decent read of people and in my observations and interactions with him I genuinely believe he believes a benevolent dictator building a centralized system is the only way to bring non-profit-motivated secure messaging to the masses, and that if one accepts this seemingly irrefutable truth, then the best candidate for the job is himself. He is charismatic, highly intelligent, and lives by his own moral compass, rejecting FOSS ethos and silicon valley capitalist ethos alike. This makes him especially dangerous.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    Then no support should be provided for these forks. Caveat emptor unless you use the official client.
  - lrvick 6y ago
    Moxie openly admits he centralized because it is easier and that decentralizing is too hard. We should all just give up and pick the least bad centralized service. With that thinking we would all be using AOL. Making a robust flexible protocol that can support a bunch of different client and service implementations is hard, but that is how we ended up avoiding email and web browsing being controlled by a single entity. Matrix is solving the hard problem of providing the core functionality of tools like Slack and Whatsapp without sacrificing user freedom or asking you to trust any one entity. This is what ethical engineering looks like, and I don't mind tolerating occasional growing pains in exchange for freedom.
- chalst 6y ago
  There are forks of the Signal client that do use the OWS servers [1], but IIUC they are in violation of the OWS TOS. Certainly moxie has threatened to block forked clients, which is why F-droid won't host any of these forks [2]. [1]: https://github.com/tw-hx/Signal-Android https://github.com/tw-hx/Signal-Android [2]: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/we-can-include-signal-in-f-droid/7373 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/we-can-include-signal-in-f-droid...
lrvick 6y ago
Moxie highly discourages using the APK because it means turning on untrusted sources which is highly unsafe and bypasses signature verification. It is one BGP attack or compromised CDN admin way from compromising the masses. This is one of the few points I agree with moxie on. The only safe way to install software on an Android device requires you bootstrap trust via a system supplied package manager that enforces signature verification. Lineage grabs unsigned binary blobs from a separate account with little accountability ( https://GitHub.com/themuppets https://GitHub.com/themuppets ) to limit the blast radius of illegally distributing them and does not ship a package manager at all. They expect degoogled users to do disable system signature verification to use an alternative app store like F-droid. Lineage is great if you want to turn an old device into a game system or something, but it should not be used on a device you need to be able to trust. The only Google-free option to have a signed system-verified app supply chain on Android is use a ROM that bundles F-droid as a system trusted app manager like CalyxOS, RattlesnakeOS, or my projects, aosp-build, and #!os. While F-Droid is far from perfect it is the only alternative path and Moxie refuses to allow apps to be distributed there because he openly admits he wants the usage metrics that come from Google/Apple distribution. In effect, you either use Apple/Google ecosystems to run verified binaries, or compile yourself every week or two.
- tremon 6y ago
  Moxie highly discourages using the APK because it means turning on untrusted sources which is highly unsafe and bypasses signature verification That's nice, but why should Moxie decide whether the Google Play Store is a trusted source for me?
  - lrvick 6y ago
    Right. They offer one option with signature verification and low privacy (Play store), and one option with higher privacy but low security (YOLO apk). If neither of these work for you, you are not wanted on the Signal network.
- est31 6y ago
  > bypasses signature verification. APKs do not bypass signature verification. Android still requires all apks to be signed, and only installs updates to apks that were signed by the same original key. As for BGP attacks, the apk is distributed using TLS, so it needs more than that. That being said, CDN hacks are definitely an issue. But so is someone hacking their play store account or Google play itself.
kekebo 6y ago
Another key difference would be the business model. Signal being a non-profit[0] does not provide any guarantees for the app to not become 'hostile' in the future, but any such development motivated by personal profits would at least require a change of organization type, which I assume wouldn't go unnoticed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
- lrvick 6y ago
  It was well noticed when WhatsApp changed hands to Facebook, and yet the vast majority of users didn't move to anything else because of network effects. Once users are in an ecosystem it takes years to convince them to change and only after they hit a high discomfort tipping point. If Signal ran short on funding and got bought by Google or Facebook all the tracking would kick in and most users would stay. We must stop herding people into walled gardens. It is unethical and always backfires.
Aachen 6y ago
"hardly has drawbacks" My notes on Signal contain the following: + It usually just works + Reasonable desktop experience (needs to re-link once a month or so, but otherwise independent and not terrible UX), good mobile experience - Metadata handled by Amazon - Phone number is a hard requirement, and changing your phone number means re-connecting to everyone - Funding comes from Facebook from what I recall, and even with large amounts of their $100M invested, their expenses are 8 times larger than their income. + At least it's a foundation and their finances are not a black box! ~ With a build from an untrusted third party, you can make it work on Androids where Google Play Services are intentionally firewalled off. ~ No audit of the clients. The protocol, sure, but most bugs aren't introduced on a protocol level. These are only things they could solve, i.e. that others do better. That their contact discovery solution (where you upload your phone book) is broken isn't a downside because nobody else has that figured out either.
- secfirstmd 6y ago
  "Funding comes from Facebook from what I recall." Not really. Original funding came from NGO sources such as the Open Tech Fund.
- hiq 6y ago
  > - Metadata handled by Amazon That's rather broad, which metadata are you thinking about? Especially given the sealed sender feature. Assuming you have access to everything at Amazon, what can you deduce about Signal users? I can think of: - IP address (you can tell that this IP address sent some Signal message) - size of messages - timestamps of messages (when they were received by an Amazon server) IP address leaks a lot of information but there are still workarounds, and it seems reasonable if you're in a no-trust model (meaning Signal's servers wouldn't be any better than Amazon's). In any case, that's way less information than other mainstream messengers. On the other hand, one distinguishing feature regarding metadata is groups: group membership is not known by anyone outside of the group if I understand correctly, contrary to WhatsApp (and others).
krageon 6y ago
The author is a toxic dictator who hates the idea of ceding power so that they can have a constructive and open protocol for everyone. That means the app should never be used, by anyone. If you're going to use software like this, you may as well stay with whatsapp - at least that has a lot of users.
- chalst 6y ago
  There is nothing wrong with the protocol, the client software or the server software; the problem is entirely with the OWS server TOS.
  - krageon 6y ago
    How would we know? The signal app as most people understand it cannot be built in a reproducible manner. This means that most people will be using something that may as well be compromised. The author does not care. It doesn't matter what the source code behind it is, as an entity signal is hostile to everything a good messaging app should be.
    - chalst 6y ago
      The Java classes making up the application proper have had reproducible builds since 2016 [1]. The Play Services Signal relies on don't, but there are open source alternatives. [1]: https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/
      - krageon 6y ago
        If you can't produce the app as you download it, it's not reproducible. Saying part of it is is disingenuous.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  I see mention of the toxic dictator stuff and non-reproducible builds mentioned through this thread - do you have info on that you can point me to? I am asking because a guy at work wanted me to install Signal as voice call quality on Duo was appallingly bad. Thanks in advance.

by chalst 6y ago

dessant 6y ago

> forks ... may not use the official Signal network Is it technically prevented or just frowned upon? The former would be strange, because fixing a bug in your own private fork would also exclude you from the network.

csunbird 6y ago
I actually do not find this unreasonable, maintaining and providing backwards support everyone's custom version with their own quirks would be a big technical burden.
- dessant 6y ago
  Allowing modding and forks does not mean you have to provide support for them.
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    Exactly this. You don't have to prohibit homosexuality just because you don't want to deal with adding support to your database of married citizens / prohibit forks because you don't want to support them. The argument makes no sense. I can't decide if Moxie is a double agent with street cred or honestly trying to do good here.
    - lrvick 6y ago
      I am generally a pretty decent read of people and in my observations and interactions with him I genuinely believe he believes a benevolent dictator building a centralized system is the only way to bring non-profit-motivated secure messaging to the masses, and that if one accepts this seemingly irrefutable truth, then the best candidate for the job is himself. He is charismatic, highly intelligent, and lives by his own moral compass, rejecting FOSS ethos and silicon valley capitalist ethos alike. This makes him especially dangerous.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Then no support should be provided for these forks. Caveat emptor unless you use the official client.
- lrvick 6y ago
  Moxie openly admits he centralized because it is easier and that decentralizing is too hard. We should all just give up and pick the least bad centralized service. With that thinking we would all be using AOL. Making a robust flexible protocol that can support a bunch of different client and service implementations is hard, but that is how we ended up avoiding email and web browsing being controlled by a single entity. Matrix is solving the hard problem of providing the core functionality of tools like Slack and Whatsapp without sacrificing user freedom or asking you to trust any one entity. This is what ethical engineering looks like, and I don't mind tolerating occasional growing pains in exchange for freedom.
chalst 6y ago
There are forks of the Signal client that do use the OWS servers [1], but IIUC they are in violation of the OWS TOS. Certainly moxie has threatened to block forked clients, which is why F-droid won't host any of these forks [2]. [1]: https://github.com/tw-hx/Signal-Android https://github.com/tw-hx/Signal-Android [2]: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/we-can-include-signal-in-f-droid/7373 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/we-can-include-signal-in-f-droid...

lrvick 6y ago

Moxie highly discourages using the APK because it means turning on untrusted sources which is highly unsafe and bypasses signature verification. It is one BGP attack or compromised CDN admin way from compromising the masses. This is one of the few points I agree with moxie on. The only safe way to install software on an Android device requires you bootstrap trust via a system supplied package manager that enforces signature verification. Lineage grabs unsigned binary blobs from a separate account with little accountability ( https://GitHub.com/themuppets https://GitHub.com/themuppets ) to limit the blast radius of illegally distributing them and does not ship a package manager at all. They expect degoogled users to do disable system signature verification to use an alternative app store like F-droid. Lineage is great if you want to turn an old device into a game system or something, but it should not be used on a device you need to be able to trust. The only Google-free option to have a signed system-verified app supply chain on Android is use a ROM that bundles F-droid as a system trusted app manager like CalyxOS, RattlesnakeOS, or my projects, aosp-build, and #!os. While F-Droid is far from perfect it is the only alternative path and Moxie refuses to allow apps to be distributed there because he openly admits he wants the usage metrics that come from Google/Apple distribution. In effect, you either use Apple/Google ecosystems to run verified binaries, or compile yourself every week or two.

tremon 6y ago
Moxie highly discourages using the APK because it means turning on untrusted sources which is highly unsafe and bypasses signature verification That's nice, but why should Moxie decide whether the Google Play Store is a trusted source for me?
- lrvick 6y ago
  Right. They offer one option with signature verification and low privacy (Play store), and one option with higher privacy but low security (YOLO apk). If neither of these work for you, you are not wanted on the Signal network.
est31 6y ago
> bypasses signature verification. APKs do not bypass signature verification. Android still requires all apks to be signed, and only installs updates to apks that were signed by the same original key. As for BGP attacks, the apk is distributed using TLS, so it needs more than that. That being said, CDN hacks are definitely an issue. But so is someone hacking their play store account or Google play itself.

kekebo 6y ago

Another key difference would be the business model. Signal being a non-profit[0] does not provide any guarantees for the app to not become 'hostile' in the future, but any such development motivated by personal profits would at least require a change of organization type, which I assume wouldn't go unnoticed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation

lrvick 6y ago
It was well noticed when WhatsApp changed hands to Facebook, and yet the vast majority of users didn't move to anything else because of network effects. Once users are in an ecosystem it takes years to convince them to change and only after they hit a high discomfort tipping point. If Signal ran short on funding and got bought by Google or Facebook all the tracking would kick in and most users would stay. We must stop herding people into walled gardens. It is unethical and always backfires.

Aachen 6y ago

"hardly has drawbacks" My notes on Signal contain the following: + It usually just works + Reasonable desktop experience (needs to re-link once a month or so, but otherwise independent and not terrible UX), good mobile experience - Metadata handled by Amazon - Phone number is a hard requirement, and changing your phone number means re-connecting to everyone - Funding comes from Facebook from what I recall, and even with large amounts of their $100M invested, their expenses are 8 times larger than their income. + At least it's a foundation and their finances are not a black box! ~ With a build from an untrusted third party, you can make it work on Androids where Google Play Services are intentionally firewalled off. ~ No audit of the clients. The protocol, sure, but most bugs aren't introduced on a protocol level. These are only things they could solve, i.e. that others do better. That their contact discovery solution (where you upload your phone book) is broken isn't a downside because nobody else has that figured out either.

secfirstmd 6y ago
"Funding comes from Facebook from what I recall." Not really. Original funding came from NGO sources such as the Open Tech Fund.
hiq 6y ago
> - Metadata handled by Amazon That's rather broad, which metadata are you thinking about? Especially given the sealed sender feature. Assuming you have access to everything at Amazon, what can you deduce about Signal users? I can think of: - IP address (you can tell that this IP address sent some Signal message) - size of messages - timestamps of messages (when they were received by an Amazon server) IP address leaks a lot of information but there are still workarounds, and it seems reasonable if you're in a no-trust model (meaning Signal's servers wouldn't be any better than Amazon's). In any case, that's way less information than other mainstream messengers. On the other hand, one distinguishing feature regarding metadata is groups: group membership is not known by anyone outside of the group if I understand correctly, contrary to WhatsApp (and others).

krageon 6y ago

The author is a toxic dictator who hates the idea of ceding power so that they can have a constructive and open protocol for everyone. That means the app should never be used, by anyone. If you're going to use software like this, you may as well stay with whatsapp - at least that has a lot of users.

chalst 6y ago
There is nothing wrong with the protocol, the client software or the server software; the problem is entirely with the OWS server TOS.
- krageon 6y ago
  How would we know? The signal app as most people understand it cannot be built in a reproducible manner. This means that most people will be using something that may as well be compromised. The author does not care. It doesn't matter what the source code behind it is, as an entity signal is hostile to everything a good messaging app should be.
  - chalst 6y ago
    The Java classes making up the application proper have had reproducible builds since 2016 [1]. The Play Services Signal relies on don't, but there are open source alternatives. [1]: https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/
    - krageon 6y ago
      If you can't produce the app as you download it, it's not reproducible. Saying part of it is is disingenuous.
72deluxe 6y ago
I see mention of the toxic dictator stuff and non-reproducible builds mentioned through this thread - do you have info on that you can point me to? I am asking because a guy at work wanted me to install Signal as voice call quality on Duo was appallingly bad. Thanks in advance.