5 ms·

Very recently they added their first closed-source component to their code, supposedly a spam filter. This sort of went by HN. I can't help but think that the t

Very recently they added their first closed-source component to their code, supposedly a spam filter. This sort of went by HN. I can't help but think that the timing with all these requests is rather coincidental.

Klonoar 5y ago
It didn't "sort of go by HN", it was on the front page for a bit and had some 97 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031
approxim8ion 5y ago
My understanding is that this component was added to their server code. If their clients are still verifyiably encrypting the content and limiting the metadata for your messages, it should not be much of an issue.
- robryk 5y ago
  Every time you send a message with Signal, you inform the server which user the message is for. Thus, the server can remember (sending IP, target phone number) pairs and, for similar reasons, (phone number, IP of the user when retrieving messages) pairs. We rely on the server to discard this information; if not discarded, it reveals the social graph and the phone number<->IPs used mapping.
  - sam_lowry_ 5y ago
    And since Snowden we know that meta-information is as important as information. So Signal being E2E encrypted goes only halfway towards ensuring the privacy of our communications.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    I'm aware of this, but it's not like it's a new concern with this piece of code. This has always been the case.
- BelenusMordred 5y ago
  Don't really understand the cries for their server code to be constantly updated or even open sourced, you can't ever verify that's what they are running anyway. Maybe there's some sort of cryptographic attestation out there which could fulfil such purposes but quite sure it's not that practical.
  - robryk 5y ago
    That's true and it's one reason I'm not too comfortable with Signal's access to metadata (even though they are the best nonfederated communicator in that regard). There are a few reasons why I would prefer them to provide source code that they claim is running in the service due to the metadata issue: a) if it's actually running there, people can find simple bugs in it that could allow that metadata to be stored or revealed by accident, b) if it's not actually running there, but something very close is (i.e. that code with small amount of patches), then the advantage above still applies and if those patches come to light, they can be easily evaluated for intent and effect, c) if they're running something completely different (which would be very weird), it'd be noticeable and it would be an obvious lie once exposed.
0xy 5y ago
Their server code was closed source for over a year with no explanation, turns out it was to add a shitcoin called "MobileCoin" that Signal's founder has a financial interest in. Ever since that, I don't think you should consider Signal's server "open source" at all. They've shown they'll conceal, diverge and cover up for their own enrichment. What will they do when they're threatened? Cave.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  No kidding such a bad look
- nix23 5y ago
  https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server >Last commit 7 Days ago >AGPL-3.0 License That's the present
  - 0xy 5y ago
    How does this disprove what I said? I said it WAS closed source. It's also not complete anymore, so I think it's still safe to call it closed source. If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source. Yeah no that's not the definition of opensource, if my opensource mailserver has a closed source spam-scanner, my mail server is still opensource - the spam-scanner
      - 0xy 5y ago
        And when the spam scanner looks like: phone_home_to_nsa(metadata, ip_address, sender, recipient); Are you still comfortable with this 'open source' project?

Klonoar 5y ago

It didn't "sort of go by HN", it was on the front page for a bit and had some 97 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031

approxim8ion 5y ago

My understanding is that this component was added to their server code. If their clients are still verifyiably encrypting the content and limiting the metadata for your messages, it should not be much of an issue.

robryk 5y ago
Every time you send a message with Signal, you inform the server which user the message is for. Thus, the server can remember (sending IP, target phone number) pairs and, for similar reasons, (phone number, IP of the user when retrieving messages) pairs. We rely on the server to discard this information; if not discarded, it reveals the social graph and the phone number<->IPs used mapping.
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  And since Snowden we know that meta-information is as important as information. So Signal being E2E encrypted goes only halfway towards ensuring the privacy of our communications.
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  I'm aware of this, but it's not like it's a new concern with this piece of code. This has always been the case.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
Don't really understand the cries for their server code to be constantly updated or even open sourced, you can't ever verify that's what they are running anyway. Maybe there's some sort of cryptographic attestation out there which could fulfil such purposes but quite sure it's not that practical.
- robryk 5y ago
  That's true and it's one reason I'm not too comfortable with Signal's access to metadata (even though they are the best nonfederated communicator in that regard). There are a few reasons why I would prefer them to provide source code that they claim is running in the service due to the metadata issue: a) if it's actually running there, people can find simple bugs in it that could allow that metadata to be stored or revealed by accident, b) if it's not actually running there, but something very close is (i.e. that code with small amount of patches), then the advantage above still applies and if those patches come to light, they can be easily evaluated for intent and effect, c) if they're running something completely different (which would be very weird), it'd be noticeable and it would be an obvious lie once exposed.

0xy 5y ago

Their server code was closed source for over a year with no explanation, turns out it was to add a shitcoin called "MobileCoin" that Signal's founder has a financial interest in. Ever since that, I don't think you should consider Signal's server "open source" at all. They've shown they'll conceal, diverge and cover up for their own enrichment. What will they do when they're threatened? Cave.

onphonenow 5y ago
No kidding such a bad look
nix23 5y ago
https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server >Last commit 7 Days ago >AGPL-3.0 License That's the present
- 0xy 5y ago
  How does this disprove what I said? I said it WAS closed source. It's also not complete anymore, so I think it's still safe to call it closed source. If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source. Yeah no that's not the definition of opensource, if my opensource mailserver has a closed source spam-scanner, my mail server is still opensource - the spam-scanner
    - 0xy 5y ago
      And when the spam scanner looks like: phone_home_to_nsa(metadata, ip_address, sender, recipient); Are you still comfortable with this 'open source' project?