6 ms·

> Note that even once these features reach everyone, both you and the people you are chatting with on Signal will need to be using the most updated version of t

by Vinnl 3y ago

> Note that even once these features reach everyone, both you and the people you are chatting with on Signal will need to be using the most updated version of the app to take advantage of them. > Each version of the Signal app expires after about 90 days, after which people on the older version will need to update to the latest version of Signal. This means that in about 90 days, your phone number privacy settings will be honored by everyone using an official Signal app. Which is also an example of a challenge for open ecosystems where everyone can create apps. I understand that it doesn't outweigh the benefits to everyone, but it is a valid reason.

vlovich123 3y ago
Protocol ratcheting, but 90 days would be quick if there’s a lot of apps.
LoganDark 3y ago
Does this mean the protocol still exposes your phone number and it's hidden only by the client side?
- varenc 3y ago
  The answer is almost certainly no. It means the old APIs that expose phone numbers will stop working in 90 days. And old clients along with them. I have not investigated this at all, but I have enough faith in Signal/Whisper Systems to be optimistic.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    The way they say "privacy settings will be honored by everyone using an official Signal app." kinda suggests they're gonna let third parties keep getting this info...
    - pyramid301 3y ago
      [dead]
    - contact9879 3y ago
      They won't. It'll be similar to message timers or delete for everyone. You can revoke sharing your number and it will be hidden in official apps but third party apps won't magically forget the number that was previously shared. However if you choose not to share your number from the start, no one will be able to see your number.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Found out the hard way that the old versions do stop working. You don't even get message notifications if your app is out of date.
    - jcollins1991 3y ago
      Yup, I was on an international trip with hardly any data allowance when all of a sudden my messages stopped sending, and I couldn't receive any new ones... That'll never happen with SMS. I love Signal, but some of their product decisions have been questionable.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        Their decisions seem right for the use case of a secure messaging app, but I don't care about that use case and would rather use a non-e2ee app that'll be reliable, not lock me out, and work seamlessly across devices. Also, for those who truly care about e2ee, it's pointless if you aren't checking all the safety numbers out-of-band.
        freedomben 3y ago
        Yes, this is a compromise on the CIA triad. It prefers integrity and confidentiality over availability. That is a fine decision to make for a security-minded app, but signal has always presented themselves as a full alternative to SMS and other messaging systems where availability is prioritized over confidentiality and integrity. It should really be made more clear so that users are making an informed decision. They could also do wonders for the user experience by having the app inform the user of the problem and how to remedy it.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, but I wouldn't call SMS super available either since it relies a lot on the ends too. Had a lot of those drop when I traveled. Something like Facebook Messenger has a whole server storing messages, so it's solid, you'll receive them later even if your phone breaks.
hot_gril 3y ago
Hackers can always create apps.
- verandaguy 3y ago
  This is a common, but terrible argument. Anyone can (mis)use, make, or weaponise technology given enough time and funding. Following this reasoning to its logical extreme, nobody should ever do anything. The problem something like this solves is to raise the bar somewhat and discourage a fraction of those who would. Done right, that fraction will be significant.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    It's not a big expensive task to look at what data an app is sending/receiving. Anyone with minimal reverse-engineering skill will know how to intercept HTTPS to/from their own phone in 5 minutes. Signal uses some other protocol, but it's also doable, also it's open source anyway. The conclusion isn't that Signal should be closed-source, it's that Signal's servers should not trust the clients not to be tampered with. So after 90 days, they will remove phone numbers from the protocol for users who have hidden them, breaking old clients, which is fine. What is the alternative solution you're thinking of?
  - saurik 3y ago
    I mean, if WhatsApp said this about the privacy of messages, Signal would be running billboard ads about how they don't care about privacy and look at how much better Signal is, right? This is the company that goes out of their way to pile on advanced encryption and insists on using dangerous secure enclaves to get this kind of thing right... until they are asked the hide phone numbers, at which point they are selling people a false bill of goods that WILL confuse someone into giving their phone number to someone who they really shouldn't have. It isn't as if it is somehow impossible to hide anyone's number at the protocol level: hell... even Snapchat does this, right?
unethical_ban 3y ago
I wish it were more obvious that Signal expires its apps every 90 days. My mom couldn't receive signal calls on the backup phone I gave her. I had disabled auto-updates since apps break UI sometimes and she gets confused by things moving around. When I visited, I opened the signal app and was told I had to update.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  It's patently unforgivable that a message would not be delivered because the client is out of date. The Signal team is incredibly clueless and arrogant toward its userbase. It seems to simply not have occurred to them that many people rarely/never have wifi, may not be on AC power when they are on wifi which means the phone may not check for / apply updates, etc. In the US, cellular is often expensive and slow. In underdeveloped countries where software like Signal could be really important, all this is even more true. We get shit crammed down our throats to protect the most obscure edge cases for the smallest percentage of the most vulnerable users - such as not being able to sync messages between devices - but then they pull shit like this which has a huge impact for people in rural areas and underdeveloped countries?
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    Delivering a message to a client which is known to be less secure than the sender expected it to be is unforgivable. Refusing to deliver is inconvenient.
    - jjav 3y ago
      > Delivering a message to a client which is known to be less secure than the sender expected it to be is unforgivable. That is inconsistent with the threat model of a messaging system! Inherently, a messaging system will deliver a plaintext copy of the message to the recipient(s). Wouldn't be much of a messaging system otherwise. Once you sent something and it was delivered in plaintext to the recipient, the information disclosure risk is completely out of your control (and out of control of the application in use). The recipient is free to leak it however they wish. If you don't trust the recipient to keep it private, don't send it.
smt88 3y ago
Is Signal considered to be (or attempting to be) an open ecosystem? My understanding is that Signal (the app) is private, not anonymous, centralized, and closed. The underlying protocol is open and could be used for an open ecosystem, but I didn't think Signal aspired to do that.
- lima 3y ago
  The apps and most of the backend are open source too, not just the protocol. The important distinction is that it's not decentralized like XMPP or email, which is a conscious decision: it would become very difficult to change it to add new features and they'd be left behind by closed-source competitors (see: XMPP).
  - ezst 3y ago
    I see that it is a ton of wishful thinking and FUD on the side of Signal to claim that: XMPP is alive and kicking, has all the features one needs, runs everywhere, at scale, offers the same or better crypto, better privacy, better resilience and is more sustainable. When Signal will inevitably fail/turn against its users/enshittify itself or get acquired, all federated and P2P protocols will keep on going. For decades. That's the kind of communications systems we should be demanding in the present era, nothing less.
    - kiwijamo 3y ago
      Yet I'd wager most HN readers have a grand total of zero XMPP contacts. Myself included. Proving the GPs point.
      - AJ007 3y ago
        Because of what Google did with Google Talk. https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-netwo... XMPP is underrated. A lot of people are imagining Pidgen in 2011, but the protocol has been extended, the actively developed clients are good, and it avoids the heavier parts of Matrix (both client and server side.) I wouldn't be surprised if Slack's replacement when Salesforce inevitably fucks it up will be XMPP based rather than Matrix.

by Vinnl 3y ago

vlovich123 3y ago

Protocol ratcheting, but 90 days would be quick if there’s a lot of apps.

LoganDark 3y ago

Does this mean the protocol still exposes your phone number and it's hidden only by the client side?

varenc 3y ago
The answer is almost certainly no. It means the old APIs that expose phone numbers will stop working in 90 days. And old clients along with them. I have not investigated this at all, but I have enough faith in Signal/Whisper Systems to be optimistic.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  The way they say "privacy settings will be honored by everyone using an official Signal app." kinda suggests they're gonna let third parties keep getting this info...
  - pyramid301 3y ago
    [dead]
  - contact9879 3y ago
    They won't. It'll be similar to message timers or delete for everyone. You can revoke sharing your number and it will be hidden in official apps but third party apps won't magically forget the number that was previously shared. However if you choose not to share your number from the start, no one will be able to see your number.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Found out the hard way that the old versions do stop working. You don't even get message notifications if your app is out of date.
  - jcollins1991 3y ago
    Yup, I was on an international trip with hardly any data allowance when all of a sudden my messages stopped sending, and I couldn't receive any new ones... That'll never happen with SMS. I love Signal, but some of their product decisions have been questionable.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Their decisions seem right for the use case of a secure messaging app, but I don't care about that use case and would rather use a non-e2ee app that'll be reliable, not lock me out, and work seamlessly across devices. Also, for those who truly care about e2ee, it's pointless if you aren't checking all the safety numbers out-of-band.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Yes, this is a compromise on the CIA triad. It prefers integrity and confidentiality over availability. That is a fine decision to make for a security-minded app, but signal has always presented themselves as a full alternative to SMS and other messaging systems where availability is prioritized over confidentiality and integrity. It should really be made more clear so that users are making an informed decision. They could also do wonders for the user experience by having the app inform the user of the problem and how to remedy it.
        hot_gril 3y ago
        Yeah, but I wouldn't call SMS super available either since it relies a lot on the ends too. Had a lot of those drop when I traveled. Something like Facebook Messenger has a whole server storing messages, so it's solid, you'll receive them later even if your phone breaks.

hot_gril 3y ago

Hackers can always create apps.

verandaguy 3y ago
This is a common, but terrible argument. Anyone can (mis)use, make, or weaponise technology given enough time and funding. Following this reasoning to its logical extreme, nobody should ever do anything. The problem something like this solves is to raise the bar somewhat and discourage a fraction of those who would. Done right, that fraction will be significant.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  It's not a big expensive task to look at what data an app is sending/receiving. Anyone with minimal reverse-engineering skill will know how to intercept HTTPS to/from their own phone in 5 minutes. Signal uses some other protocol, but it's also doable, also it's open source anyway. The conclusion isn't that Signal should be closed-source, it's that Signal's servers should not trust the clients not to be tampered with. So after 90 days, they will remove phone numbers from the protocol for users who have hidden them, breaking old clients, which is fine. What is the alternative solution you're thinking of?
- saurik 3y ago
  I mean, if WhatsApp said this about the privacy of messages, Signal would be running billboard ads about how they don't care about privacy and look at how much better Signal is, right? This is the company that goes out of their way to pile on advanced encryption and insists on using dangerous secure enclaves to get this kind of thing right... until they are asked the hide phone numbers, at which point they are selling people a false bill of goods that WILL confuse someone into giving their phone number to someone who they really shouldn't have. It isn't as if it is somehow impossible to hide anyone's number at the protocol level: hell... even Snapchat does this, right?

unethical_ban 3y ago

I wish it were more obvious that Signal expires its apps every 90 days. My mom couldn't receive signal calls on the backup phone I gave her. I had disabled auto-updates since apps break UI sometimes and she gets confused by things moving around. When I visited, I opened the signal app and was told I had to update.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
It's patently unforgivable that a message would not be delivered because the client is out of date. The Signal team is incredibly clueless and arrogant toward its userbase. It seems to simply not have occurred to them that many people rarely/never have wifi, may not be on AC power when they are on wifi which means the phone may not check for / apply updates, etc. In the US, cellular is often expensive and slow. In underdeveloped countries where software like Signal could be really important, all this is even more true. We get shit crammed down our throats to protect the most obscure edge cases for the smallest percentage of the most vulnerable users - such as not being able to sync messages between devices - but then they pull shit like this which has a huge impact for people in rural areas and underdeveloped countries?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Delivering a message to a client which is known to be less secure than the sender expected it to be is unforgivable. Refusing to deliver is inconvenient.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Delivering a message to a client which is known to be less secure than the sender expected it to be is unforgivable. That is inconsistent with the threat model of a messaging system! Inherently, a messaging system will deliver a plaintext copy of the message to the recipient(s). Wouldn't be much of a messaging system otherwise. Once you sent something and it was delivered in plaintext to the recipient, the information disclosure risk is completely out of your control (and out of control of the application in use). The recipient is free to leak it however they wish. If you don't trust the recipient to keep it private, don't send it.

smt88 3y ago

Is Signal considered to be (or attempting to be) an open ecosystem? My understanding is that Signal (the app) is private, not anonymous, centralized, and closed. The underlying protocol is open and could be used for an open ecosystem, but I didn't think Signal aspired to do that.

lima 3y ago
The apps and most of the backend are open source too, not just the protocol. The important distinction is that it's not decentralized like XMPP or email, which is a conscious decision: it would become very difficult to change it to add new features and they'd be left behind by closed-source competitors (see: XMPP).
- ezst 3y ago
  I see that it is a ton of wishful thinking and FUD on the side of Signal to claim that: XMPP is alive and kicking, has all the features one needs, runs everywhere, at scale, offers the same or better crypto, better privacy, better resilience and is more sustainable. When Signal will inevitably fail/turn against its users/enshittify itself or get acquired, all federated and P2P protocols will keep on going. For decades. That's the kind of communications systems we should be demanding in the present era, nothing less.
  - kiwijamo 3y ago
    Yet I'd wager most HN readers have a grand total of zero XMPP contacts. Myself included. Proving the GPs point.
    - AJ007 3y ago
      Because of what Google did with Google Talk. https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-netwo... XMPP is underrated. A lot of people are imagining Pidgen in 2011, but the protocol has been extended, the actively developed clients are good, and it avoids the heavier parts of Matrix (both client and server side.) I wouldn't be surprised if Slack's replacement when Salesforce inevitably fucks it up will be XMPP based rather than Matrix.