6 ms·

This is pretty irksome. I get how satisfying it must feel, but the one thing I want as a Signal proponent is for the app to be boring and reliable. That means m

This is pretty irksome. I get how satisfying it must feel, but the one thing I want as a Signal proponent is for the app to be boring and reliable. That means make it easy to use enough to be mainstream, squash bugs, and do all the lovely security work you do. That does not mean adding stuff like untraceable cryptocurrency payments or very publicly tweaking the noses of law enforcement, and bragging about how you're putting exploits in your app to hack them. This isn't 1993 and the last thing we need is more pretexts to ban E2E encrypted apps in the countries where they're needed the most. I think this trades a moment's satisfaction for a very bad long-term outcome.

jjoonathan 6y ago
Signal isn't going to actually do it, they know how that would end, they're just playing the FUD game in the other direction. Which I am 100% on board with.
- idlewords 6y ago
  Maybe the one thing worse than boasting that you're putting malware in your product is boasting about it and not doing it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    Is it malware if users desire for their devices to be resistant to surveillance tools?
    - spinny 6y ago
      goodware ??
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Those are not related issues - it's malware or not malware based on what it does or did (e.g. did it corrupt data on someone else's computer system because it was intended to do just that thing?) regardless of the reason for placing it there. If you can't figure out a way to satisfy your desire for your devices to be resistant to surveillance tools with legal means, well, then you can't satisfy that desire. Furthermore, not only the ends don't justify the means, the ends can be prohibited too - if you explicitly design something to destroy your own data knowing that this data would get used in a criminal investigation, that may be a crime on its own (tampering with evidence/obstruction of justice, location matters of course); you don't have to testify against yourself, but destroying evidence is a crime even if it's your property (e.g. throwing your gun into a river after a shooting so it wouldn't be found) and furthermore in that case the court may be allowed to assume that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to you, that the data contained the damning things they expected to find there - so if you want to protect your devices from surveillance tools operated with a legal warrant, you might want to consult a lawyer to find out if that's a good idea in your jurisdiction, it may well be worse for you than doing nothing.
      - mannerheim 6y ago
        It is software that many of us are perfectly content with possessing on our devices. Cellebrite may not want it on their devices, but it's not like we consent to Cellebrite copying over our data. Holding us or Signal responsible for this is akin to holding a dog or its owner responsible for a burglar getting mauled - it would be one matter if the dog mauled a guest, but you can hardly blame either with unauthorised entry. In this case, exploiting this can be considered a form of digital rights management. As for tampering with evidence, your claims are certainly overbroad, otherwise one could consider Signal's vanishing messages and deliberate lack of logging to be tampering with evidence. In any case, an individual is hardly responsible for those actions; they presumably did not deliberately seek to destroy Cellebrite data since Signal may choose to do this entirely at random.
      - tgragnato 6y ago
        > If you can't figure out a way to satisfy your desire for your devices to be resistant to surveillance tools with legal means, well, then you can't satisfy that desire. I fear this part of your argument is fallacious. A peaceful and hilarious response to an abuse is not illegal. An if it is, it should not be. This post just highlights how petty the means and methods used by "some companies" are. Moxie is rightfully mocking Cellebrite and its customers, and it's fantastic. About the obstruction of justice... If governments around the world are having an appetite for abuses, we shall not fall for it. There are other ways to get to criminals. Tell state officers they can do their job without abusing the private sphere of citizens. It's Cellebrite devices that should be made illegal, because "justice" should not depend on surveillance tools. Just days ago the same US IC shared a memo/report about the rise of authoritarianism and how western democracies are threatened by it. Let's stop this double standard.
  - rOOb85 6y ago
    They are not putting malware into their app. They are adding athletically pleasing files to their app. Is it Signals fault if someone else's software doesn't work properly with them? How can Signal test every piece of software to make sure it's compatible with their own software? Especially when the other software is using Signal in a unintended way. It's not signals job to secure 3rd party software, that's entirely on the 3rd party.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Intent matters, come on, your arguments are ridiculuous. If one of the aesthetically pleasing files turns out to contain an exploit targeted at Cellebrite software, then it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that this isn't a coincidence but intentional malware, especially combined with this wink-wink bragpost. It's not Signal's job to secure third party software, they can intentionally post incompatible data, but it definitely is their job (just as everyone else's, mandated by criminal law) to abstain from any activities that would tamper with evidence. If that incompatible data isn't limited to randomness or crashes but contains, quoting the article "a file that executes arbitrary code on the Cellebrite machine" or "undetectably alter previous reports, compromise the integrity of future reports (perhaps at random!), or exfiltrate data from the Cellebrite machine" then it obviously was intentionally made that way, which crosses the line and at that point yes, it's definitely Signal's fault. If that gets actually executed on a machine owned not by Signal but e.g. some law enforcement agency, then Signal and any involved developers personally may face criminal charges. It does not even need to involve any computer specific laws (though those are also likely to apply) - if there's an incident where evidence got disrupted, if there's evidence that this incident was caused by "aesthetically pleasing files" developed by Signal, and there's some evidence (e.g. this blogpost) that they made these files knowing that they might result in other evidence being destroyed - that's completely enough, that's tampering with evidence, a felony. Go directly to jail, do not collect $200, don't expect sympathy from law enforcement and the legal system. In my personal opinion this is all FUD and scaremongering, because actually doing so carries little benefit and high risk for Signal. But, of course, no one can be sure.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    Malware? Any countermeasure against state surveillance is a good thing for us.
- zie 6y ago
  The client code is open source, so it should be pretty easy to tell if they actually do it.
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    I would assume their aesthetically pleasing files would not be part of their client code since the clients are fetching these files from Signal. So whether they're fetching aesthetically pleasing files would be easy to tell, but trickier to tell if those files actually have payload.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Automatically open the files with Cellebrite software tools in a sandbox environment?
      - mannerheim 6y ago
        Wouldn't necessarily work: > Files will only be returned for accounts that have been active installs for some time already, and only probabilistically in low percentages based on phone number sharding. You would have to have an already existing Signal account that's been around for some time and hope you get sent one of these files.
spoonjim 6y ago
Signal has a strong ideology. If you don’t want to be a part of that then don’t use the app.
- idlewords 6y ago
  Secure messaging apps aren't very thick on the ground. I don't have to agree with Signal on every issue, I just want them to ease off the 4-Loko.
g_sch 6y ago
The problem with being boring while attacking powerful institutions (like LEOs or nation states) is that it only works as long as you're small enough to stay below their radar. After a certain point, the material reality will sink in that you're a threat, and they're going to take action against you regardless of how you carry yourself. It's totally possible, given that we're starting to hear more and more accounts of powerful people using Signal, that we're approaching that tipping point, and a more gloves-off approach might be necessary. That being said, I agree with you 100% on the cryptocurrency payments issue and think that was a misstep on their part.
lvs 6y ago
I think there's a chance the two topics you mention might be connected. The loud backlash to the cryptocurrency scheme took many by surprise and seeded doubt about Moxie's ideological commitment. This post might be seen as an attempt to recover some street cred.
adiabat 6y ago
I agree and find it more than irksome -- it really makes me want to stop using Signal and stop recommending it to anyone; moreso even than the recent scamcoin integration. The reason I want e2e encryption is because I want control of my devices, control of my information, control of what's going on. It's not Moxie's phone to drop random files on to, regardless of purpose. It's my phone, and I consider programs that are doing things that I'm not aware of malware. (Admittedly, Android is rife with stuff I don't want going on, so it's not really my phone, it's Google's and Motorola's and a bunch of other entities who have their tentacles in it, but still...) Maybe the last paragraph is a joke, and they have no intention of randomly placing files on unwitting client machines. It's open source, so I could compile the client myself and make sure it's not doing anything funny. What a pain though. At that point, so much trust is lost in the organization and codebase that really I need to find some other messaging protocol / app / network.

jjoonathan 6y ago

Signal isn't going to actually do it, they know how that would end, they're just playing the FUD game in the other direction. Which I am 100% on board with.

idlewords 6y ago
Maybe the one thing worse than boasting that you're putting malware in your product is boasting about it and not doing it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mannerheim 6y ago
  Is it malware if users desire for their devices to be resistant to surveillance tools?
  - spinny 6y ago
    goodware ??
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Those are not related issues - it's malware or not malware based on what it does or did (e.g. did it corrupt data on someone else's computer system because it was intended to do just that thing?) regardless of the reason for placing it there. If you can't figure out a way to satisfy your desire for your devices to be resistant to surveillance tools with legal means, well, then you can't satisfy that desire. Furthermore, not only the ends don't justify the means, the ends can be prohibited too - if you explicitly design something to destroy your own data knowing that this data would get used in a criminal investigation, that may be a crime on its own (tampering with evidence/obstruction of justice, location matters of course); you don't have to testify against yourself, but destroying evidence is a crime even if it's your property (e.g. throwing your gun into a river after a shooting so it wouldn't be found) and furthermore in that case the court may be allowed to assume that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to you, that the data contained the damning things they expected to find there - so if you want to protect your devices from surveillance tools operated with a legal warrant, you might want to consult a lawyer to find out if that's a good idea in your jurisdiction, it may well be worse for you than doing nothing.
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      It is software that many of us are perfectly content with possessing on our devices. Cellebrite may not want it on their devices, but it's not like we consent to Cellebrite copying over our data. Holding us or Signal responsible for this is akin to holding a dog or its owner responsible for a burglar getting mauled - it would be one matter if the dog mauled a guest, but you can hardly blame either with unauthorised entry. In this case, exploiting this can be considered a form of digital rights management. As for tampering with evidence, your claims are certainly overbroad, otherwise one could consider Signal's vanishing messages and deliberate lack of logging to be tampering with evidence. In any case, an individual is hardly responsible for those actions; they presumably did not deliberately seek to destroy Cellebrite data since Signal may choose to do this entirely at random.
    - tgragnato 6y ago
      > If you can't figure out a way to satisfy your desire for your devices to be resistant to surveillance tools with legal means, well, then you can't satisfy that desire. I fear this part of your argument is fallacious. A peaceful and hilarious response to an abuse is not illegal. An if it is, it should not be. This post just highlights how petty the means and methods used by "some companies" are. Moxie is rightfully mocking Cellebrite and its customers, and it's fantastic. About the obstruction of justice... If governments around the world are having an appetite for abuses, we shall not fall for it. There are other ways to get to criminals. Tell state officers they can do their job without abusing the private sphere of citizens. It's Cellebrite devices that should be made illegal, because "justice" should not depend on surveillance tools. Just days ago the same US IC shared a memo/report about the rise of authoritarianism and how western democracies are threatened by it. Let's stop this double standard.
- rOOb85 6y ago
  They are not putting malware into their app. They are adding athletically pleasing files to their app. Is it Signals fault if someone else's software doesn't work properly with them? How can Signal test every piece of software to make sure it's compatible with their own software? Especially when the other software is using Signal in a unintended way. It's not signals job to secure 3rd party software, that's entirely on the 3rd party.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Intent matters, come on, your arguments are ridiculuous. If one of the aesthetically pleasing files turns out to contain an exploit targeted at Cellebrite software, then it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that this isn't a coincidence but intentional malware, especially combined with this wink-wink bragpost. It's not Signal's job to secure third party software, they can intentionally post incompatible data, but it definitely is their job (just as everyone else's, mandated by criminal law) to abstain from any activities that would tamper with evidence. If that incompatible data isn't limited to randomness or crashes but contains, quoting the article "a file that executes arbitrary code on the Cellebrite machine" or "undetectably alter previous reports, compromise the integrity of future reports (perhaps at random!), or exfiltrate data from the Cellebrite machine" then it obviously was intentionally made that way, which crosses the line and at that point yes, it's definitely Signal's fault. If that gets actually executed on a machine owned not by Signal but e.g. some law enforcement agency, then Signal and any involved developers personally may face criminal charges. It does not even need to involve any computer specific laws (though those are also likely to apply) - if there's an incident where evidence got disrupted, if there's evidence that this incident was caused by "aesthetically pleasing files" developed by Signal, and there's some evidence (e.g. this blogpost) that they made these files knowing that they might result in other evidence being destroyed - that's completely enough, that's tampering with evidence, a felony. Go directly to jail, do not collect $200, don't expect sympathy from law enforcement and the legal system. In my personal opinion this is all FUD and scaremongering, because actually doing so carries little benefit and high risk for Signal. But, of course, no one can be sure.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Malware? Any countermeasure against state surveillance is a good thing for us.
zie 6y ago
The client code is open source, so it should be pretty easy to tell if they actually do it.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  I would assume their aesthetically pleasing files would not be part of their client code since the clients are fetching these files from Signal. So whether they're fetching aesthetically pleasing files would be easy to tell, but trickier to tell if those files actually have payload.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Automatically open the files with Cellebrite software tools in a sandbox environment?
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      Wouldn't necessarily work: > Files will only be returned for accounts that have been active installs for some time already, and only probabilistically in low percentages based on phone number sharding. You would have to have an already existing Signal account that's been around for some time and hope you get sent one of these files.

spoonjim 6y ago

Signal has a strong ideology. If you don’t want to be a part of that then don’t use the app.

idlewords 6y ago
Secure messaging apps aren't very thick on the ground. I don't have to agree with Signal on every issue, I just want them to ease off the 4-Loko.

g_sch 6y ago

The problem with being boring while attacking powerful institutions (like LEOs or nation states) is that it only works as long as you're small enough to stay below their radar. After a certain point, the material reality will sink in that you're a threat, and they're going to take action against you regardless of how you carry yourself. It's totally possible, given that we're starting to hear more and more accounts of powerful people using Signal, that we're approaching that tipping point, and a more gloves-off approach might be necessary. That being said, I agree with you 100% on the cryptocurrency payments issue and think that was a misstep on their part.

lvs 6y ago

I think there's a chance the two topics you mention might be connected. The loud backlash to the cryptocurrency scheme took many by surprise and seeded doubt about Moxie's ideological commitment. This post might be seen as an attempt to recover some street cred.

adiabat 6y ago

I agree and find it more than irksome -- it really makes me want to stop using Signal and stop recommending it to anyone; moreso even than the recent scamcoin integration. The reason I want e2e encryption is because I want control of my devices, control of my information, control of what's going on. It's not Moxie's phone to drop random files on to, regardless of purpose. It's my phone, and I consider programs that are doing things that I'm not aware of malware. (Admittedly, Android is rife with stuff I don't want going on, so it's not really my phone, it's Google's and Motorola's and a bunch of other entities who have their tentacles in it, but still...) Maybe the last paragraph is a joke, and they have no intention of randomly placing files on unwitting client machines. It's open source, so I could compile the client myself and make sure it's not doing anything funny. What a pain though. At that point, so much trust is lost in the organization and codebase that really I need to find some other messaging protocol / app / network.