3 ms·
No, the author is right. There are many cases where an attacker can access a device for a short time and/or without the owner realizing that the phone was tamp
by goodpoint 5y ago
No, the author is right.
There are many cases where an attacker can access a device for a short time and/or without the owner realizing that the phone was tampered with.
- staticassertion 5y agoJust because that's possible doesn't mean that it's within Signal's threat model.
- contravariant 5y agoSure, but exactly how would you build something that's robust against that kind of access? If you leave cryptographic keys lying around unprotected they should be assumed to be compromised.
- klyrs 5y agoSignal has a PIN, too. If that's required for the transfer, then it would prevent this in the case of brief, surreptitious access. A hostage scenario is impossible
- contravariant 5y agoWell, maybe, but 'brief' is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that sentence.
- klyrs 5y ago> There are many cases where an attacker can access a device for a short time and/or without the owner realizing that the phone was tampered with. This is what you originally responded to. I paraphrased it. The "heavy lifting" meme that you've employed is rarely more than a shallow dismissal. Be better.