The difficulty of any non-mainstream chat app is getting other people to use it. On that list, Signal is the most probable to be recognized by people who don't have a particular interest in privacy, so it's more likely to get more people to use it.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
83 points (92.8% liked)
Privacy
31609 readers
322 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
besides that, and besides the lack of forward secrecy on matrix and session already mentioned by privacy guides, do some of these alternatives have worse security, privacy, or ux than signal in some way?
both have worse UX than Signal. pretty much all except Signal are lacking on this front. OSS developers are allergic to a smooth UX in general
This is the complete and sad truth 🤣
Signal's UX is NOT good unless you want to expose your encrypted conversations to a smartphone (of which far from all can run a private OS). All because of no desktop registration. You either have to use inconvenient signal-cli, or an Android emulator which creates its own troubles.
xmpp has a variety of clients for desktop and mobile. You cannot dismiss them all as having worse ux than signal.
The same is true for matrix.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why is Session always mentioned ? It's an Australian company, in a land with zero constitutional oversight I'd be more inclined to think its a honeypot then a privavy focused chat app. Anom springs to mind as an example.
You should not trust any company or organization. What matters is the security and privacy or the app and service.
The major one that concerns me is who is behind them. Even if we trust that their encryption is not backdoored, there is a lot of information that can be gathered just from the frequency of messages and who they are between.
If it came out that a three letter agency was running one of these networks, it would not suprise me at all.
Yeah but you cant really obfuscate your message destination and timing without using onion routing, and really thats just making it more expensive to compromise and run. That said other things here do make it seem like a honeypot...
Its fully open source though, even the server. Might not be that hard to fork it and let people host their own servers.
load more comments
(7 replies)
What's your use case? Likeminded techie friends? Family members?
Signal works well as an alternative to the likes of Telegram and WhatsApp, even if it still requires a phone number and is centralised. Far easier to explain to the family instead of "oh well you can sign up on this website or this website or that website".
Granted, if you want to host a small Matrix server just for the family, then go for it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I've had good fortune converting some family and friends to use XMPP.
People always mention fragmentation, and while there is some truth to it, it can be massively minimised by choosing blessed clients and servers for them to use.
In my case, I run my own server, and thoroughly test the clients (especially the onboarding flow) that I expect them to use, so that any question they have, I can help them out with quickly. Since we're all on identically configured servers, it minimises one whole class of incompatibilities.
There is still unfortunately a bit of a usability gap compared to Signal - particularly on the iOS clients. But they have come a long way and are consistently improving.
You can host Simplex server and clients
Signal isn't federated. Signal has centralized servers. Signal requires phone number identification to use it. Signal stores your encryption key on their servers.... Relying on sgx enclaves to 'protrct' your encryption key.
Signal can go down. Signal knows who you talk to, just by message timing. Signal knows how frequently you talk to someone. Signal can decrypt your traffic by attack their own sgx enclaves and extracting your encryption key.
These are all possible threats and capabilities. You have to decide what tradeoff makes sense to you. Fwiw I still use signal.
Signal stores your encryption key on their servers....
That would surprise me. What's your source for this?
load more comments
(15 replies)
Many assertions without any proof. Could you at least point out the sources for such statements?
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/why_not_signal.md
Also, most of the points of the message you replied to are abstract and don't need any citation. Like do you want source for signal being centralized or for signal having ability to track you?
Everything in that post makes perfect sense; the proof is in knowing how these systems work, Signal's source code, and details from Signal themselves. I can go into more detail on each point when I'm at a computer; my phone kills processes in a few seconds when I try to multitask which makes it nearly impossible to write long posts on mobile if I have to go back and forth to copy and paste. Is there any claim in particular you want details on as to why it's reasonable, or shall I just do the lot? Edit: Ah, OP got it, nevermind!
Also, I should point out that I use Signal pretty much exclusively for messaging. This isn't hate, I'm just aware of its weaknesses.
Read the post by signal. Note the use of the word "plaintext".
we don’t have a plaintext record of your contacts, social graph, profile name, location, group memberships, groups titles, group avatars, group attributes, or who is messaging whom.
Whenever someone qualifies a statement like this, without clarifying, it's clear they're trying to obfuscate something.
I don't need to dig into the technical details to know it's not as secure as they like to present themselves.
Thanks. I didn't realize they were so disingenuous. This also explains why they stopped supporting SMS - it didn't transit their servers (they'd have to add code to capture SMS, which people would notice).
They now seem like a honeypot.
They are very much not. Anyone who tells you this is a state influencer or someone who believed a state influencer.
Saying something has the capabilities of a honeypot, is the correct thing to do when we're assessing our threat model.
Is it a honey pot? I don't know. It's unknowable. We have to acknowledge the the actual capabilities of the software as written and the data flows and the organizational realities.
My concern is people stay away from Signal in favor of unencrypted privacy nightmares. It happened with DDG a while back where I knew people who used Google because DDG had privacy issues. It sounds dumb but it is a true story.
Sure. I still encourage people to use signal. Most people don't have a threat model that makes the honey pot scenario a viable threat. In this thread we are talking about its downsides, which is healthy to do from time to time. Acknowledging capabilities is a good exercise.
excuse me what? signal can extract your encryption key how exactly?
They have your key In a SGX enclave. You only need to look at the rich history of side channel attacks, known SGX critical vulnerabilities, or just the fact that Intel can sign arbitrary code, which can run in the enclave, which means they can be compelled to with the cooperation of the government
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3456631
I'm not saying they do, but they have the capability, which needs to be accounted for in your threat model.
At the end of the day, people are entrusting their encryption keys with the signal foundation to be stored in the cloud. That needs to be part of the threat model.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm using Matrix/element. I rather not give my phone number, you see, which is must-have for Signal. I have installed the app in my family's phones, and they were accepting, so all is well. I don't need to communicate through private messaging with anybody else, so who cares if others don't use matrix?
Yeah, about that. https://www.signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/
That's my point. The phone number IS STILL required to create an account at Signal!
load more comments
(7 replies)
I think Signal rolled out a username system that should let users communicate without having to share phone numbers
You still have to register initially with a phone number to be able to setup a username.
Let's not forget that for those looking for alternatives, a key feature of signal is/was its SMS integration.
I use silence, a fork of signal.
- upside: it can still send and receive SMS messages!
- downside: nobody else uses it, so it only does SMS as a result.
For those who don't remember, not only could signal be used for SMS, it used to be able to do encrypted sms convos.
The need to wait for an SMS to register a new account and the potential for recaptcha loop (which I have experienced) is a serious downside to Signal. Something I never need worry about with xmpp, matrix or threema.
view more: next ›