9 ms·

I think a half-way point is needed for something to be truely durable. I agree with the criticisms of P2P in that you need to make some privacy tradeoffs. But d

I think a half-way point is needed for something to be truely durable. I agree with the criticisms of P2P in that you need to make some privacy tradeoffs. But durability is another concern (as we've seen recently with the takedown of Element from the Play Store). Is it possible for somebody else to spin-up a new centralised Signal server? Why isn't the server code-base open source? Signal would grow immensely in my eyes if they made the server code open source [SEE EDIT], and allowed an easy way to set the centralised server address in the Signal app. The current server would be the default, and perhaps changing the server would be hidden in Advanced Options for now. But the capability would be there. That way, if x government chooses to go after Signal's servers, the availability of all the code needed to run a replacement is already available. As it stands, we are placing a lot of trust in the Signal Foundation for communication (assuming we rely on the Signal app/service). I have no problem with a central server being used for communication if I can communicate data in a zero-trust way. But I want assurance that that server can be quickly and easily replaced in the event it goes down. EDIT: I stand corrected. Server code is here: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server Unfortunately, you cannot change the server address in the app as downloaded from any app store, so my criticism remains.

vorticalbox 6y ago
Server is open source too. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
- crossroadsguy 6y ago
  Only one branch: master Last updated: 9 months ago Unless I am missing something obvious in GitHub UI.
  - epse 6y ago
    They don't actually develop on github, but code goes there every now and then. Not ideal, but better than nothing imo
    - jasdine817 6y ago
      And who knows if it's actually the software they deploy too.
      - growse 6y ago
        > And who knows if it's actually the software they deploy too. The whole literal point of the protocol is so that you don't have to trust the server, assuming you trust the client and protocol.
        vinay427 6y ago
        That's true for the fundamental part of sending and receiving messages, but at least one ancillary feature (contact discovery) requires trusting the server. They do have a setup with an Intel SGX enclave for remote attestation but I'm not knowledgeable on the limitations of this, although I understand that there are some. https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
        growse 6y ago
        Good point, I was just considering the messaging part. It'd be useful to be able to opt out of contact discovery, as I'm not sure you can do this on the current client.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  look in their forums , few get it running an those who do discover that certain features like reactions etc don't work. So why exactly is happening on the server ??
growse 6y ago
> Signal would grow immensely in my eyes if they made the server code open source [SEE EDIT], and allowed an easy way to set the centralised server address in the Signal app. The current server would be the default, and perhaps changing the server would be hidden in Advanced Options for now. I feel like this misses the point of what Signal is. It's not just software, it is the network as well. The client is a client that lets you communicate on the Signal network, which is operated centrally. A client that lets you choose a server endpoint is no longer a "Signal client", it's a Signal-compatible network client. People seem to have an expectation that Signal server API is public, and that it should allow any compatible client to connect, or that a given client to connect to any compatible endpoint (in the spirit of public client/server internetty stuff). From what I can see, part of the whole point of the centralisation is to take that client/server API private so that the 'official' signal server only ever has to support a single client that they also control (hence allowing rapid iteration, avoiding legacy support etc). > Unfortunately, you cannot change the server address in the app as downloaded from any app store, so my criticism remains. What's preventing someone maintaining a client fork where you can do this? We have the code to run a Signal-compatible networks and software that can support this, so why does nobody?
- Jiejeing 6y ago
  >What's preventing someone maintaining a client fork where you can do this? We have the code to run a Signal-compatible networks and software that can support this, so why does nobody? This is actively discouraged: https://github.com/libresignal/libresignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165 https://github.com/libresignal/libresignal/issues/37#issueco...
  - growse 6y ago
    If you read the link, what's discouraged is using the non official client to connect to the Signal service, or using the "Signal" name on something that isn't produced / run by OWS. There's nothing there about preventing anyone from running a signal-compatible service/network and shipping a fork of their own client to connect to it, which is my original point.
  - 6y ago
reagent_finder 6y ago
I feel that's pretty disingenuous. Like you noticed the server-side code is active, and changing server address would be a niche-of-a-niche activity. Also, what would be the point of going after Signal's servers? Even if a/the government got a hold of all the data in there, it's encrypted with client keys. I mean sure, if they took over secretly and became a malicious MITM that's different, but it's still only for any future messages, not history. Not to mention I'd be inclined to believe they'd get the word out. Signal's research and protocol is already used in, well, basically each and every discussion/video platform. WhatsApp, Telegram, Skype, Facebook Messenger, Google Messages, Duo... so it's hard to see Signal becoming more ubiquitous. Seeing the app more will probably happen naturally when events happen (like the WhatsApp privacy change) to drive people towards more secure platforms, but honestly I don't really see a major shift anytime soon.
- the_why_of_y 6y ago
  Telegram does not use Signal's protocol, Telegram's protocol is designed from scratch. https://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-cryptanalysis-contest https://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypt...
  - reagent_finder 6y ago
    Ah true, MTProto is unique, looks like.

vorticalbox 6y ago

Server is open source too. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server

crossroadsguy 6y ago
Only one branch: master Last updated: 9 months ago Unless I am missing something obvious in GitHub UI.
- epse 6y ago
  They don't actually develop on github, but code goes there every now and then. Not ideal, but better than nothing imo
  - jasdine817 6y ago
    And who knows if it's actually the software they deploy too.
    - growse 6y ago
      > And who knows if it's actually the software they deploy too. The whole literal point of the protocol is so that you don't have to trust the server, assuming you trust the client and protocol.
      - vinay427 6y ago
        That's true for the fundamental part of sending and receiving messages, but at least one ancillary feature (contact discovery) requires trusting the server. They do have a setup with an Intel SGX enclave for remote attestation but I'm not knowledgeable on the limitations of this, although I understand that there are some. https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
        growse 6y ago
        Good point, I was just considering the messaging part. It'd be useful to be able to opt out of contact discovery, as I'm not sure you can do this on the current client.
bilal4hmed 6y ago
look in their forums , few get it running an those who do discover that certain features like reactions etc don't work. So why exactly is happening on the server ??

growse 6y ago

> Signal would grow immensely in my eyes if they made the server code open source [SEE EDIT], and allowed an easy way to set the centralised server address in the Signal app. The current server would be the default, and perhaps changing the server would be hidden in Advanced Options for now. I feel like this misses the point of what Signal is. It's not just software, it is the network as well. The client is a client that lets you communicate on the Signal network, which is operated centrally. A client that lets you choose a server endpoint is no longer a "Signal client", it's a Signal-compatible network client. People seem to have an expectation that Signal server API is public, and that it should allow any compatible client to connect, or that a given client to connect to any compatible endpoint (in the spirit of public client/server internetty stuff). From what I can see, part of the whole point of the centralisation is to take that client/server API private so that the 'official' signal server only ever has to support a single client that they also control (hence allowing rapid iteration, avoiding legacy support etc). > Unfortunately, you cannot change the server address in the app as downloaded from any app store, so my criticism remains. What's preventing someone maintaining a client fork where you can do this? We have the code to run a Signal-compatible networks and software that can support this, so why does nobody?

Jiejeing 6y ago
>What's preventing someone maintaining a client fork where you can do this? We have the code to run a Signal-compatible networks and software that can support this, so why does nobody? This is actively discouraged: https://github.com/libresignal/libresignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165 https://github.com/libresignal/libresignal/issues/37#issueco...
- growse 6y ago
  If you read the link, what's discouraged is using the non official client to connect to the Signal service, or using the "Signal" name on something that isn't produced / run by OWS. There's nothing there about preventing anyone from running a signal-compatible service/network and shipping a fork of their own client to connect to it, which is my original point.
- 6y ago

reagent_finder 6y ago

I feel that's pretty disingenuous. Like you noticed the server-side code is active, and changing server address would be a niche-of-a-niche activity. Also, what would be the point of going after Signal's servers? Even if a/the government got a hold of all the data in there, it's encrypted with client keys. I mean sure, if they took over secretly and became a malicious MITM that's different, but it's still only for any future messages, not history. Not to mention I'd be inclined to believe they'd get the word out. Signal's research and protocol is already used in, well, basically each and every discussion/video platform. WhatsApp, Telegram, Skype, Facebook Messenger, Google Messages, Duo... so it's hard to see Signal becoming more ubiquitous. Seeing the app more will probably happen naturally when events happen (like the WhatsApp privacy change) to drive people towards more secure platforms, but honestly I don't really see a major shift anytime soon.

the_why_of_y 6y ago
Telegram does not use Signal's protocol, Telegram's protocol is designed from scratch. https://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-cryptanalysis-contest https://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypt...
- reagent_finder 6y ago
  Ah true, MTProto is unique, looks like.