> I guess I'm just confused because I don't see how what you're linking answers my question. You wanted to know what Signal was storing and if they could decry

> I guess I'm just confused because I don't see how what you're linking answers my question. You wanted to know what Signal was storing and if they could decrypt it. I linked to an FAQ which says: Storage Service (the “cloud”) What is stored? All information stored is encrypted; note again that each storage record uses a different derived key for encryption. This protobuf file explains which information is stored, and how it is structured. You’re probably most interested in this part which shows the actual data that’s stored; it should be self-explanatory, so not copying the list here. Notably, message history is currently not backed up using Storage Service. The "You’re probably most interested in this part" bit linked to that same github page. The same FAQ continues: What is it used for? Restoring some information upon re-installation/registration of the Signal app (on same or new device) by entering your Signal PIN. This is only possible if you are re-registering with the same phone number you used previously. Not available if you’ve disabled the Signal PIN (in this case only possible with manual backup/restore (Android) or transfer (iOS); these methods additionally preserve your message history). Syncing contacts and groups to linked devices (this is made possible by syncing the “base” storage service key to linked devices). This is still partially being done using Signal Protocol sync messages, but that is unreliable This tells you what they are collecting, but you also wanted to know if they could access it, and the answer is yes. I linked to one article explaining some of problems with the security of Signal's set up, but here is another https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkyzek/signal-new-pin-feature-worries-cybersecurity-experts https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkyzek/signal-new-pin-featur... > As for SGX, my understanding is that 1) this exploit is pretty technical 2) it requires physical access and 3) that it is not the primary method of security, but a secondary one. Finding exploits is hard, using them is often pretty easy. As the article put it SGX enclaves are “a sort of wet paper bag for clustering sensitive info.” but if you're interested here's a discussion on some of the issues with SGX here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23468746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23468746 Physical access isn't a problem for state actors or Signal employees, and without the enclave we're back to being protected by 4 digit PINs again which is no protection at all.