4 ms·

> it had to do with not wanting to own the user’s contact list. Using a phone number allowed them to rely on a contact list on the users phone, which is not tie

> it had to do with not wanting to own the user’s contact list. Using a phone number allowed them to rely on a contact list on the users phone, which is not tied to the signal account. That doesn't make any sense. Signal did the total opposite. It started keeping sensitive user data in the cloud including your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of your contacts. It stores that data on their servers permanently.

_6hmp 4y ago
I don't think this is true, do you have a source? They store registered users phone numbers and allow discovery by making a request with a hashed version of the phone numbers on your contact list. They add an extra layer to allow attestation of the software doing this using Intel's secure enclave. They give many examples of responding to warrants with only whether the number has been registered and the timestamp of registration, which they explain is the only information they hold. Private Contact Discovery: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
- autoexec 4y ago
  Your 2017 blog post is outdated. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... and https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-anything-stored-in-cloud/14057/27 https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-... See here for a discussion on how Intel's 'secure' enclave won't save you: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu...
  - dcow 4y ago
    There's a horrible conflation of concepts here. A pretty big one. When people talk about cloud services, they generally mean part of an application that runs on the cloud that participates as a trusted actor in the application's trust model. What people in the linked thread are realizing is that "signal has a server" and they are confused because they thought signal didn't have a server, or something. So, what's important about Signals servers is that, outside of initial key exchange which is verified by two parties out of band, they are not a trusted entity, ever. When you send a message it goes through signals servers. When you sync your profile picture with other devices, same thing. The data transits signals servers. This is made possible because of cryptography. By encrypting the data in a way that is indecipherable by 3rd parties (Signal's servers included) your data is isomorphic to random noise. So, the only thing Signal needs to do is route the random noise to the right place. If it doesn't do that, it's a denial of service and about the only attack you're vulnerable to if you use Signal. Otherwise, the receiver gets the exact random noise that you sent, but only they can make sense of it because of the miracle of cryptography. If you're really doing to throw a fit because Signal syncs a profile picture between your devices using the same level of crypto as is used for messaging then you're honestly crazy. No. Signal did not "not have a cloud" and now they "have a cloud". Not by any reasonable interpretation of the events.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Signal has a "cloud" a server where they collect and store your name, your phone number, your photo, and list of every person you've contacted using Signal. That data isn't some ephemeral encrypted string that is only present when you "sync your profile picture" or when you send a message. It is collected and stored on their server where it will sit for at least as long as you have an account. The justification for it was so that you could get a new device and have Signal download all of your info from your Signal's server down to your device. The data collection first takes place as soon as you set a pin or opt out of setting one (at which point a pin is assigned for you automatically). The data is encrypted, but that does not make it impossible for signal or for 3rd parties to access it. see: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... If you're a whistleblower or an activist, a list of every person you've been contacting using Signal is a highly sensitive data. No matter how you want to spin it, Signal is hosting that highly sensitive user data on their servers where Signal and 3rd parties alike could possibly gain access to them.
      - dcow 4y ago
        You should assume every bit of information sent on the internet is archived in a massive warehouse somewhere, because it is. Thus, we have to trust the cryptography itself. Sending an encrypted message to a peer is no different from sending an encrypted message to yourself (other than the use of symmetric vs asymmetric crypto). The fact that you send a message to yourself which is stored persistently on signal's server doesn't change anything (and it's even opt in AFAIU). Sure, there are concerns about the implementation, but until someone can decrypt the blobs in storage (the crypto is broken) I don't see reason for outrage. Pretty simply, if you don't trust the crypto then you have a very different threat model to pretty much everyone else. If you don't trust crypto you can't use the internet because you can't use TLS. You're relegated to networks where you trust every single node (where you don't need crypto) and other such stuff. Most of us trust the crypto because it's really the only practical option. I don't see the problem.
        4y ago
  - _6hmp 4y ago
    I just wanted to thank you for the information and the ensuing thread. Very interesting.
MAGZine 4y ago
The list of your contacts bit is patently false, they've discussed in detail about how they securely organize contact lists: https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/ Signal has always kept your name/pic/etc on their servers I believe, because otherwise you turn signal into a P2P application, which it is not. It's a fully encrypted application that stores minimal information. It is NOT P2P. For example, your messages are stored on their servers until they're delivered.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The list of your contacts bit is patently false, You are wrong and your blog post from 2014 doesn't take into account their new data collection practices. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... If this is the first time you're hearing about the data collection, that should tell you everything you need to know about how trustworthy Signal is. > Signal has always kept your name/pic/etc on their servers I believe Wrong again I'm afraid. There really was a time when Signal didn't collect and store any user data on their servers. They've repeatedly bragged about times when governments have come around asking them for data and they were able to turn the feds away because that data was never collected in the first place. That changed with the update which added pins. Today, Signal now collects that very same data.
andrepd 4y ago
This is absolutely NOT true. (1) Signal doesn't store your contacts, and (2) Signal only stores a name and a profile photo if you want, and in a secure way https://signal.org/blog/signal-profiles-beta/ https://signal.org/blog/signal-profiles-beta/
- autoexec 4y ago
  I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but Signal 100% stores your contacts. They keep your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of every person you've contacted using Signal. That data is permanently stored on their servers. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... > "This should be updated for the recent changes where contacts are uploaded to Signal’s servers and stored permanently along with Groups V2 and other data, protected by a 4-digit minimum PIN and Intel SGX – there have been concerns 5 raised 2 in these forums, particularly if one of your contacts chooses a brute-forceable PIN which in the context of an Intel SGX vulnerability 1 could leak a lot of contact data if hacked, even if you choose a strong password." See the two links sited in that comment for more information on why it isn't actually stored in "secure" way.
nobody9999 4y ago
>That doesn't make any sense. Signal did the total opposite. It started keeping sensitive user data in the cloud including your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of your contacts. It stores that data on their servers permanently. This is the first I've heard of that. And if it's true, it's a big problem. Is there any documentation of this behavior that you can direct me to?
- autoexec 4y ago
  You aren't alone. There are a ton of people who have no idea Signal has been collecting and storing sensitive user data on their servers. There was a ton of discussion about it when the update rolled out and a lot of backlash from their users, which they ignored. They've since refused to update their privacy policy as well which I personally see as a canary warning users to avoid their service. https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... https://community.signalusers.org/t/what-contact-info-does-the-signal-pin-functionality-actually-save/16854/5 https://community.signalusers.org/t/what-contact-info-does-t... https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-anything-stored-in-cloud/14057 https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-... https://community.signalusers.org/t/sgx-cacheout-sgaxe-attack-signals-cloud-storage-and-contact-discovery-vulnerable/14892 https://community.signalusers.org/t/sgx-cacheout-sgaxe-attac...
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >You aren't alone. There are a ton of people who have no idea Signal has been collecting and storing sensitive user data on their servers. There was a ton of discussion about it when the update rolled out and a lot of backlash from their users, which they ignored. They've since refused to update their privacy policy as well which I personally see as a canary warning users to avoid their service. Edit: This bit is apparently not the case. And more's the pity. ====Section affected by edit========= I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but if you disable the PIN functionality[0], Signal doesn't upload the information you're talking about. ==== End section affected by edit========= Which isn't a new change (IIUC, PIN disablement was introduced ~2 years ago). I'd say that using the PIN functionality should be opt-in rather than opt-out, so in that respect I agree. Further, Signal should probably update their policy documents to reflect the current state of affairs. But I stand by my previous comment[1]. [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059792#pin_disable https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059792#pi... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474579

_6hmp 4y ago

I don't think this is true, do you have a source? They store registered users phone numbers and allow discovery by making a request with a hashed version of the phone numbers on your contact list. They add an extra layer to allow attestation of the software doing this using Intel's secure enclave. They give many examples of responding to warrants with only whether the number has been registered and the timestamp of registration, which they explain is the only information they hold. Private Contact Discovery: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

autoexec 4y ago
Your 2017 blog post is outdated. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... and https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-anything-stored-in-cloud/14057/27 https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-... See here for a discussion on how Intel's 'secure' enclave won't save you: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu...
- dcow 4y ago
  There's a horrible conflation of concepts here. A pretty big one. When people talk about cloud services, they generally mean part of an application that runs on the cloud that participates as a trusted actor in the application's trust model. What people in the linked thread are realizing is that "signal has a server" and they are confused because they thought signal didn't have a server, or something. So, what's important about Signals servers is that, outside of initial key exchange which is verified by two parties out of band, they are not a trusted entity, ever. When you send a message it goes through signals servers. When you sync your profile picture with other devices, same thing. The data transits signals servers. This is made possible because of cryptography. By encrypting the data in a way that is indecipherable by 3rd parties (Signal's servers included) your data is isomorphic to random noise. So, the only thing Signal needs to do is route the random noise to the right place. If it doesn't do that, it's a denial of service and about the only attack you're vulnerable to if you use Signal. Otherwise, the receiver gets the exact random noise that you sent, but only they can make sense of it because of the miracle of cryptography. If you're really doing to throw a fit because Signal syncs a profile picture between your devices using the same level of crypto as is used for messaging then you're honestly crazy. No. Signal did not "not have a cloud" and now they "have a cloud". Not by any reasonable interpretation of the events.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Signal has a "cloud" a server where they collect and store your name, your phone number, your photo, and list of every person you've contacted using Signal. That data isn't some ephemeral encrypted string that is only present when you "sync your profile picture" or when you send a message. It is collected and stored on their server where it will sit for at least as long as you have an account. The justification for it was so that you could get a new device and have Signal download all of your info from your Signal's server down to your device. The data collection first takes place as soon as you set a pin or opt out of setting one (at which point a pin is assigned for you automatically). The data is encrypted, but that does not make it impossible for signal or for 3rd parties to access it. see: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... If you're a whistleblower or an activist, a list of every person you've been contacting using Signal is a highly sensitive data. No matter how you want to spin it, Signal is hosting that highly sensitive user data on their servers where Signal and 3rd parties alike could possibly gain access to them.
    - dcow 4y ago
      You should assume every bit of information sent on the internet is archived in a massive warehouse somewhere, because it is. Thus, we have to trust the cryptography itself. Sending an encrypted message to a peer is no different from sending an encrypted message to yourself (other than the use of symmetric vs asymmetric crypto). The fact that you send a message to yourself which is stored persistently on signal's server doesn't change anything (and it's even opt in AFAIU). Sure, there are concerns about the implementation, but until someone can decrypt the blobs in storage (the crypto is broken) I don't see reason for outrage. Pretty simply, if you don't trust the crypto then you have a very different threat model to pretty much everyone else. If you don't trust crypto you can't use the internet because you can't use TLS. You're relegated to networks where you trust every single node (where you don't need crypto) and other such stuff. Most of us trust the crypto because it's really the only practical option. I don't see the problem.
      - 4y ago
- _6hmp 4y ago
  I just wanted to thank you for the information and the ensuing thread. Very interesting.

MAGZine 4y ago

The list of your contacts bit is patently false, they've discussed in detail about how they securely organize contact lists: https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/ Signal has always kept your name/pic/etc on their servers I believe, because otherwise you turn signal into a P2P application, which it is not. It's a fully encrypted application that stores minimal information. It is NOT P2P. For example, your messages are stored on their servers until they're delivered.

autoexec 4y ago
> The list of your contacts bit is patently false, You are wrong and your blog post from 2014 doesn't take into account their new data collection practices. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... If this is the first time you're hearing about the data collection, that should tell you everything you need to know about how trustworthy Signal is. > Signal has always kept your name/pic/etc on their servers I believe Wrong again I'm afraid. There really was a time when Signal didn't collect and store any user data on their servers. They've repeatedly bragged about times when governments have come around asking them for data and they were able to turn the feds away because that data was never collected in the first place. That changed with the update which added pins. Today, Signal now collects that very same data.

andrepd 4y ago

This is absolutely NOT true. (1) Signal doesn't store your contacts, and (2) Signal only stores a name and a profile photo if you want, and in a secure way https://signal.org/blog/signal-profiles-beta/ https://signal.org/blog/signal-profiles-beta/

autoexec 4y ago
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but Signal 100% stores your contacts. They keep your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of every person you've contacted using Signal. That data is permanently stored on their servers. See: https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... > "This should be updated for the recent changes where contacts are uploaded to Signal’s servers and stored permanently along with Groups V2 and other data, protected by a 4-digit minimum PIN and Intel SGX – there have been concerns 5 raised 2 in these forums, particularly if one of your contacts chooses a brute-forceable PIN which in the context of an Intel SGX vulnerability 1 could leak a lot of contact data if hacked, even if you choose a strong password." See the two links sited in that comment for more information on why it isn't actually stored in "secure" way.

nobody9999 4y ago

>That doesn't make any sense. Signal did the total opposite. It started keeping sensitive user data in the cloud including your name, your photo, your phone number, and a list of your contacts. It stores that data on their servers permanently. This is the first I've heard of that. And if it's true, it's a big problem. Is there any documentation of this behavior that you can direct me to?

autoexec 4y ago
You aren't alone. There are a ton of people who have no idea Signal has been collecting and storing sensitive user data on their servers. There was a ton of discussion about it when the update rolled out and a lot of backlash from their users, which they ignored. They've since refused to update their privacy policy as well which I personally see as a canary warning users to avoid their service. https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-security-pins-are-too-easy-to-brute-force-sgx-is-not-reliable-enough/15096 https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu... https://community.signalusers.org/t/what-contact-info-does-the-signal-pin-functionality-actually-save/16854/5 https://community.signalusers.org/t/what-contact-info-does-t... https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update-its-privacy-policy/15323 https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-update... https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-anything-stored-in-cloud/14057 https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-want-pin-dont-want-... https://community.signalusers.org/t/sgx-cacheout-sgaxe-attack-signals-cloud-storage-and-contact-discovery-vulnerable/14892 https://community.signalusers.org/t/sgx-cacheout-sgaxe-attac...
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >You aren't alone. There are a ton of people who have no idea Signal has been collecting and storing sensitive user data on their servers. There was a ton of discussion about it when the update rolled out and a lot of backlash from their users, which they ignored. They've since refused to update their privacy policy as well which I personally see as a canary warning users to avoid their service. Edit: This bit is apparently not the case. And more's the pity. ====Section affected by edit========= I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but if you disable the PIN functionality[0], Signal doesn't upload the information you're talking about. ==== End section affected by edit========= Which isn't a new change (IIUC, PIN disablement was introduced ~2 years ago). I'd say that using the PIN functionality should be opt-in rather than opt-out, so in that respect I agree. Further, Signal should probably update their policy documents to reflect the current state of affairs. But I stand by my previous comment[1]. [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059792#pin_disable https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059792#pi... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474579