4 ms·

> The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena No, it's as huge issue. You cannot trust yet another walled garden. Especially when there's no way t

> The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena No, it's as huge issue. You cannot trust yet another walled garden. Especially when there's no way to verify the servers.

godelski 5y ago
But if the app is working correctly you shouldn't have to trust the servers. I thought that was the whole point.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  No, that's a misunderstanding. Signal is vulnerable to timing correlation. An observer on the servers or on network devices nearby can easily infer the social graph of users: at what time they communicate, with whom and how often. This is not a minor issue. Quote from the former CIA director: 'We kill people based on metadata'.
  - godelski 5y ago
    So the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal because then that metadata is noisy. It's impossible to have a system with zero metadata but it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house. Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal Wrong. Do they all use the very same server? No, and therefore timing attacks are still there. > it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house Wrong. There are protocols designed to provide good security in the first place, like Briar. > Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw Also wrong. Federation makes timing attacks very difficult, especially when servers are delocalized because it increases the amount of access required by any global observer. I'm going to stop replying. You clearly are not familiar with the topic.
tptacek 5y ago
I don't know what relitigation of this issue has to do with this thread. You can use the search bar below to find probably 100 different dissections of it, starting from Moxie's post about federation that kicked the whole debate off. Let's leave it be, since this thread isn't about Signal at all.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  Isn't that why we have collapsible subthreads?
woobilicious 5y ago
Signals protocol is designed so you don't have to trust the server. Just look at how much information they hand over to the feds: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ I'm not sure what you mean by walled garden, but I assume you mean that you can't setup your own servers and join the network? What's stopping a federated network from forming a cartel and blocking small players, or servers they deem morally objectionable?
- godelski 5y ago
  By walled garden I think they mean the servers. Because the app isn't a walled garden. It is open source though centralized (Moxie has argued extensively about how this allows faster development. Though ironically Signal is known for slow development). But the servers are also open sourced so there's nothing stopping people from creating private (or even federated) "Signal" apps. You just couldn't call it Signal in name. And I don't blame Signal for keeping their servers to themselves. They're not a data center and already running a tight ship. I've never really understood the argument. Just because someone hasn't done something doesn't mean it is a walled garden.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Not only Signal refuses to have any 3rd party server federate with theirs, but they also refuse 3rd party clients. This is exactly the definition of walled garden.
    - godelski 5y ago
      There's also risk to letting others host servers. We know about bad tor nodes. Federation doesn't solve the problem you're looking to solve
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > Signals protocol is designed so you don't have to trust the server. That's not true, see the other reply.

> The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena No, it's as huge issue. You cannot trust yet another walled garden. Especially when there's no way to verify the servers.

godelski 5y ago

But if the app is working correctly you shouldn't have to trust the servers. I thought that was the whole point.

goodpoint 5y ago
No, that's a misunderstanding. Signal is vulnerable to timing correlation. An observer on the servers or on network devices nearby can easily infer the social graph of users: at what time they communicate, with whom and how often. This is not a minor issue. Quote from the former CIA director: 'We kill people based on metadata'.
- godelski 5y ago
  So the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal because then that metadata is noisy. It's impossible to have a system with zero metadata but it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house. Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal Wrong. Do they all use the very same server? No, and therefore timing attacks are still there. > it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house Wrong. There are protocols designed to provide good security in the first place, like Briar. > Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw Also wrong. Federation makes timing attacks very difficult, especially when servers are delocalized because it increases the amount of access required by any global observer. I'm going to stop replying. You clearly are not familiar with the topic.

tptacek 5y ago

I don't know what relitigation of this issue has to do with this thread. You can use the search bar below to find probably 100 different dissections of it, starting from Moxie's post about federation that kicked the whole debate off. Let's leave it be, since this thread isn't about Signal at all.

SahAssar 5y ago
Isn't that why we have collapsible subthreads?

woobilicious 5y ago

Signals protocol is designed so you don't have to trust the server. Just look at how much information they hand over to the feds: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ I'm not sure what you mean by walled garden, but I assume you mean that you can't setup your own servers and join the network? What's stopping a federated network from forming a cartel and blocking small players, or servers they deem morally objectionable?

godelski 5y ago
By walled garden I think they mean the servers. Because the app isn't a walled garden. It is open source though centralized (Moxie has argued extensively about how this allows faster development. Though ironically Signal is known for slow development). But the servers are also open sourced so there's nothing stopping people from creating private (or even federated) "Signal" apps. You just couldn't call it Signal in name. And I don't blame Signal for keeping their servers to themselves. They're not a data center and already running a tight ship. I've never really understood the argument. Just because someone hasn't done something doesn't mean it is a walled garden.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Not only Signal refuses to have any 3rd party server federate with theirs, but they also refuse 3rd party clients. This is exactly the definition of walled garden.
  - godelski 5y ago
    There's also risk to letting others host servers. We know about bad tor nodes. Federation doesn't solve the problem you're looking to solve
goodpoint 5y ago
> Signals protocol is designed so you don't have to trust the server. That's not true, see the other reply.