4 ms·

If you think the security aspect of the server don't matter, then can I please have all the metadata that get generated on the server and which only security is

by belorn 6y ago

If you think the security aspect of the server don't matter, then can I please have all the metadata that get generated on the server and which only security is the public statement by Moxie Marlinspike that they do not save the logs or store them. The client only guarantees security in term of the message content. Who talks to who, when, where, how long, and the historical patterns are secured by the policy of the server provider. Trust in the server is critical.

tptacek 6y ago
This is really silly. Signal has discussed repeatedly what metadata they keep. It might be sane to ask questions about that, except that every competing messenger keeps the absolute worst case metadata, generally in plaintext, nicely bundled up in SQL tables. At best, you'd be making the claim that Signal might... secretly be as bad as everything else. And, of course, the source code does nothing to do address this concern; they control their servers and can run any secret fork they want. It's a purity test and nothing more.
- hoophoop 6y ago
  > It's a purity test and nothing more. Wrong. Publishing the server sources allow people to create a parallel and independent service.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    What's stopping you? What does that have to do with having a bit-for-bit identical version to what Signal is running?
    - hoophoop 6y ago
      ...the simple fact that there's no guarantee that either the server or the client would receive updates. That means hard-forking the old server and client and maintain them as an independent project forever. That's what's stopping me and many other people from creating a community and federated version.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Any independent server is of necessity going to be an independent project forever, so I'm not sure what your difficulty is here.
- belorn 6y ago
  Be kind. Don't be snarky. Respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. Trust is a personal relationship. I am not making a claim that such trust should be abandoned because they delayed an update and did not transparently and openly communicated with the community about what they are doing on the server side or why. A personal relationship is personal, and what is or isn't a problem in building and maintaining that trust is up to each person. I do however claim that the placed trust in signals servers is critical for the security, and that the server side security matter. Who runs the server matters and what the server code does also matters.

by belorn 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

This is really silly. Signal has discussed repeatedly what metadata they keep. It might be sane to ask questions about that, except that every competing messenger keeps the absolute worst case metadata, generally in plaintext, nicely bundled up in SQL tables. At best, you'd be making the claim that Signal might... secretly be as bad as everything else. And, of course, the source code does nothing to do address this concern; they control their servers and can run any secret fork they want. It's a purity test and nothing more.

hoophoop 6y ago
> It's a purity test and nothing more. Wrong. Publishing the server sources allow people to create a parallel and independent service.
- tptacek 6y ago
  What's stopping you? What does that have to do with having a bit-for-bit identical version to what Signal is running?
  - hoophoop 6y ago
    ...the simple fact that there's no guarantee that either the server or the client would receive updates. That means hard-forking the old server and client and maintain them as an independent project forever. That's what's stopping me and many other people from creating a community and federated version.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Any independent server is of necessity going to be an independent project forever, so I'm not sure what your difficulty is here.
belorn 6y ago
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. Trust is a personal relationship. I am not making a claim that such trust should be abandoned because they delayed an update and did not transparently and openly communicated with the community about what they are doing on the server side or why. A personal relationship is personal, and what is or isn't a problem in building and maintaining that trust is up to each person. I do however claim that the placed trust in signals servers is critical for the security, and that the server side security matter. Who runs the server matters and what the server code does also matters.