5 ms·

I was waiting for this, even donated some time ago. Went to install it but it requires iOS8 so my perfectly functioning iPhone 4 can't run it. Is very hard to

by ogig 12y ago

I was waiting for this, even donated some time ago. Went to install it but it requires iOS8 so my perfectly functioning iPhone 4 can't run it. Is very hard to keep older iOS support? Side rant: I hate Apple is leaving my hardware off the grid. It is well cared, like new, battery is ok, no reason to think about replacing other than iOS8, and that sucks.

stormbrew 12y ago
They addressed it in this github issue: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/issues/614 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/issues/614 I'm also disappointed in this. The people I most want to use this with are also the people who have an iphone4. I don't get the impression it'd be impossible to backport it from that post, so some enterprising individual could maybe do just that...
- dguido 12y ago
  I'm surprised they didn't mention how amazingly insecure it is to be running a phone that old. If you're running a private messenger like Signal, you might not want to install it on a device vulnerable to bootrom exploits that negate all the advantages of disk encryption.
  - stormbrew 12y ago
    While this is true, they also, through TextSecure, support many android phones that are probably in much worse shape on that front. It's also not like web browsers refuse to use TLS because your computer's running a compromiseable version of Windows.
    - droopyEyelids 12y ago
      That analogy sure stopped and made me think. What a sticky issue. SHOULD browsers do that? What if your bank website refused to allow you to sign in from a machine running unpatched XP? I think right now there might not be enough exploits targeting banking on XP machines to justify that inconvenience, but it seems like a responsable argument could be made for both cases.
      - stormbrew 12y ago
        It might seem like a good idea on the surface, but think about the impact this might have on people who can least afford it (consider why people might be using old phones or old operating systems, and what impact lack of access to their bank could have on them for even a day if it's the wrong day), in the name of protecting them from something theoretical.
  - frabcus 12y ago
    The idea is to get everyone to routinely use encryption like Signal. This increases the cost of drag-net surveillance, forcing instead more specific targets. For that scenario, it doesn't matter if you're also vulnerable to direct hacks. You can still help normalise encryption.
- qznc 12y ago
  So they don't want to do the work. However, if someone sends a pull request, would they reject it?
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  If it introduces new vulnerabilities, I wouldn't want them to do it. They also have a reputation to maintain. If news starts popping out that TextSecure is vulnerable and such, fewer people will be interested in installing it anyway. But if that's not an issue, and they can afford to support at least iOS7, maybe they should do it. However, I'd rather have them focus resources on bringing Signal to Android and to the desktop. I think those are much bigger priorities than enabling Signal for a few extra million iPhone 4/S users.

by ogig 12y ago

stormbrew 12y ago

They addressed it in this github issue: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/issues/614 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/issues/614 I'm also disappointed in this. The people I most want to use this with are also the people who have an iphone4. I don't get the impression it'd be impossible to backport it from that post, so some enterprising individual could maybe do just that...

dguido 12y ago
I'm surprised they didn't mention how amazingly insecure it is to be running a phone that old. If you're running a private messenger like Signal, you might not want to install it on a device vulnerable to bootrom exploits that negate all the advantages of disk encryption.
- stormbrew 12y ago
  While this is true, they also, through TextSecure, support many android phones that are probably in much worse shape on that front. It's also not like web browsers refuse to use TLS because your computer's running a compromiseable version of Windows.
  - droopyEyelids 12y ago
    That analogy sure stopped and made me think. What a sticky issue. SHOULD browsers do that? What if your bank website refused to allow you to sign in from a machine running unpatched XP? I think right now there might not be enough exploits targeting banking on XP machines to justify that inconvenience, but it seems like a responsable argument could be made for both cases.
    - stormbrew 12y ago
      It might seem like a good idea on the surface, but think about the impact this might have on people who can least afford it (consider why people might be using old phones or old operating systems, and what impact lack of access to their bank could have on them for even a day if it's the wrong day), in the name of protecting them from something theoretical.
- frabcus 12y ago
  The idea is to get everyone to routinely use encryption like Signal. This increases the cost of drag-net surveillance, forcing instead more specific targets. For that scenario, it doesn't matter if you're also vulnerable to direct hacks. You can still help normalise encryption.
qznc 12y ago
So they don't want to do the work. However, if someone sends a pull request, would they reject it?
higherpurpose 12y ago
If it introduces new vulnerabilities, I wouldn't want them to do it. They also have a reputation to maintain. If news starts popping out that TextSecure is vulnerable and such, fewer people will be interested in installing it anyway. But if that's not an issue, and they can afford to support at least iOS7, maybe they should do it. However, I'd rather have them focus resources on bringing Signal to Android and to the desktop. I think those are much bigger priorities than enabling Signal for a few extra million iPhone 4/S users.