4 ms·

Signal wants your PSTN ID = real world ID, wants contacts from your phonebook which on Google phones generally means already cloudified, and is itself distribut

Signal wants your PSTN ID = real world ID, wants contacts from your phonebook which on Google phones generally means already cloudified, and is itself distributed through Google Play. Further, IIRC it's US-based so subject to acts of intervention from on high. I would be strongly suspicious of any metadata security claims, even if it nominally provides message or session-level encryption. Metadata is bad news.

astrange 4y ago
I assume you're an FBI agent trying to encourage people to install your real cooler encrypted app that's not on the store and only available via sideloading. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/fbi-snooped-on-criminals-using-encrypted-messaging-app.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/fbi-snooped-on-crimi...
- contingencies 4y ago
  Heh, nice one. Not that it's my area, but in case the above was not decodable as sarcasm to other readers, following the evidence-based / defense-in-depth strategies I'd personally recommend not using phones at all (far too little control in general) and instead recommend seeking out auditable (open source) software on actual machines you have a hope to control for secure communications. It's a deep rabbit hole with diminishing returns, though.
godelski 4y ago
> IIRC it's US-based so subject to acts of intervention from on high. Sure, and they have been open about what information they give. If you're talking about being forced to introduce compromised code, well I'm not aware of the US government being able to force a company to do that. Signal has said before they'll shut down and then move if this is a requirement and on top of that[1], the code is open sourced and constantly scrutinized by the security community. So sounds like a pretty difficult thing to pull off. I don't think handing your phone number to Signal is as big of a security issue as you're making it out to be. [0] https://signal.org/bigbrother/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/ [1] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-security-news/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-securi...
- contingencies 4y ago
  Sure. Aside from the Google phones upload contacts to cloud issue, and the encouraging contacts to be added thing, there are two clear problems: both metadata. (1) It's the network of phone numbers - who knows who, when they added, that starts to draw a picture. (2) If they have any infrastructure at all - update checks, contact additions, whatever, that is going to phone home or be polled or contacted whatsoever, particularly that which can facilitate a network response (generate network traffic when an ID is added) then the app effectively acts as an element that can be used for identity verification even if all traffic is encrypted. This is not a small issue. These issues are not unique to Signal, but they should not be swept under the rug. FWIW I do not claim to have read or audited their code, I just feel the use of PSTN IDs (== highly available link to personal identification) is a total farce which introduces huge risk for nearly no benefit to users and is fundamentally incompatible with their nominal public stated goals (again haven't read the official text) of end user security if that security is supposed to be best-effort.
  - godelski 4y ago
    > Sure. Aside from the Google phones upload contacts to cloud issue You can add contacts through Signal that aren't synced with Google. I've just understood this process as a way to initiate the social graph. You can just not give Signal access and start from scratch, but I don't think that accomplishes much. Also, as far as I'm aware, Signal doesn't actually know your phone number.
    - contingencies 4y ago
      The thing is, some percentage of your contacts will accidentally or knowingly grant permission for their contacts to go to Google. So by linking to that infrastructure Signal is making this problem worse, whether or not they actually facilitate the spying themselves.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I have a ton of concerns with Signal. They started collecting and storing user data in the cloud while being deceptive/unclear about it in their communications leading to a ton of confusion with users. In fact they're now storing exactly the same data that they've bragged about not being able to turn over since at that time they weren't keeping it. Pretty much as soon as it was clear Signal was going to start keeping user data, users started with objections and asking for a way to opt out of the data collection and bringing up security concerns but those objections were ignored. To this day they're violating their own privacy policy because after they started storing user data in the cloud they never bothered to update the policy. Currently it states: "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." while in practice they store your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of everyone you're in contact with which is pretty damn sensitive, especially if you're an activist or a whistleblower. I've stopped using/recommending it. To this day I run into posts where people think Signal isn't collecting any user data. I hope every user who has to learn what signal is really collecting from some random internet comment thinks long and hard about what that says about how transparent and trustworthy signal is.

astrange 4y ago

I assume you're an FBI agent trying to encourage people to install your real cooler encrypted app that's not on the store and only available via sideloading. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/fbi-snooped-on-criminals-using-encrypted-messaging-app.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/fbi-snooped-on-crimi...

contingencies 4y ago
Heh, nice one. Not that it's my area, but in case the above was not decodable as sarcasm to other readers, following the evidence-based / defense-in-depth strategies I'd personally recommend not using phones at all (far too little control in general) and instead recommend seeking out auditable (open source) software on actual machines you have a hope to control for secure communications. It's a deep rabbit hole with diminishing returns, though.

godelski 4y ago

> IIRC it's US-based so subject to acts of intervention from on high. Sure, and they have been open about what information they give. If you're talking about being forced to introduce compromised code, well I'm not aware of the US government being able to force a company to do that. Signal has said before they'll shut down and then move if this is a requirement and on top of that[1], the code is open sourced and constantly scrutinized by the security community. So sounds like a pretty difficult thing to pull off. I don't think handing your phone number to Signal is as big of a security issue as you're making it out to be. [0] https://signal.org/bigbrother/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/ [1] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-security-news/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-securi...

contingencies 4y ago
Sure. Aside from the Google phones upload contacts to cloud issue, and the encouraging contacts to be added thing, there are two clear problems: both metadata. (1) It's the network of phone numbers - who knows who, when they added, that starts to draw a picture. (2) If they have any infrastructure at all - update checks, contact additions, whatever, that is going to phone home or be polled or contacted whatsoever, particularly that which can facilitate a network response (generate network traffic when an ID is added) then the app effectively acts as an element that can be used for identity verification even if all traffic is encrypted. This is not a small issue. These issues are not unique to Signal, but they should not be swept under the rug. FWIW I do not claim to have read or audited their code, I just feel the use of PSTN IDs (== highly available link to personal identification) is a total farce which introduces huge risk for nearly no benefit to users and is fundamentally incompatible with their nominal public stated goals (again haven't read the official text) of end user security if that security is supposed to be best-effort.
- godelski 4y ago
  > Sure. Aside from the Google phones upload contacts to cloud issue You can add contacts through Signal that aren't synced with Google. I've just understood this process as a way to initiate the social graph. You can just not give Signal access and start from scratch, but I don't think that accomplishes much. Also, as far as I'm aware, Signal doesn't actually know your phone number.
  - contingencies 4y ago
    The thing is, some percentage of your contacts will accidentally or knowingly grant permission for their contacts to go to Google. So by linking to that infrastructure Signal is making this problem worse, whether or not they actually facilitate the spying themselves.
autoexec 4y ago
I have a ton of concerns with Signal. They started collecting and storing user data in the cloud while being deceptive/unclear about it in their communications leading to a ton of confusion with users. In fact they're now storing exactly the same data that they've bragged about not being able to turn over since at that time they weren't keeping it. Pretty much as soon as it was clear Signal was going to start keeping user data, users started with objections and asking for a way to opt out of the data collection and bringing up security concerns but those objections were ignored. To this day they're violating their own privacy policy because after they started storing user data in the cloud they never bothered to update the policy. Currently it states: "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." while in practice they store your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of everyone you're in contact with which is pretty damn sensitive, especially if you're an activist or a whistleblower. I've stopped using/recommending it. To this day I run into posts where people think Signal isn't collecting any user data. I hope every user who has to learn what signal is really collecting from some random internet comment thinks long and hard about what that says about how transparent and trustworthy signal is.