this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
145 points (97.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36681 readers
2137 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't know if I'm opening a can of worms here, and I'm still trying to backtrack a lot of history where I was tuning everything out. I keep seeing random swipes at Signal (or the representatives (?)), and I was wondering whether they are founded or just lies.Is it another situation like Lemmy where we just "take the technology and move on"? Thanks!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Matombo@feddit.org 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

my problem with signal is that they have a hard requirement to use a phone number for signup and that they don't want to do anything about federation or messenger intercompatibility.

Their resoning is that they only trust themself to keep the meta data safe and so need you. Leaves a little bit of a sour tast in my mouth that they don't even give their users the option to opt into federation.

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

they don’t want to do anything about federation or messenger intercompatibility.

Their reasoning is that they only trust themself to keep the meta data safe and so need you.

That's not their reasoning. Their reasoning is that it's much harder to evolve the protocol in a decentralized context than a centralized one. It's not that they only trust themselves with your metadata, it's that they can improve the protocol much faster in order to get rid of most metadata.

They have been able to deploy a ton of protocol updates with regards to minimizing the amount of metadata anyone has access to (including them), while other decentralized alternatives have essentially been stuck in limbo for a while:

  • Secure Value recovery
  • Groups V2
  • Sealed sender
  • Usernames
  • Post quantum resistance

On the other hand, Matrix, XMPP and email are very leaky with regards to metadata. I'm not going into email because that's pretty documented, but here it is for matrix:

  • Message reactions are not encrypted
  • Group membership are not encrypted (which lead to attacks)
  • Profile pic and Name are public (visible by everyone even people with whom you don't have any contact)
[–] BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is a good comparison of messengers here:

https://eylenburg.github.io/im_comparison.htm

Btw, an imprtant aspect of privacy is how metadata are handled/leaked. Signal trues to minimize metadata leak to near zero (there are some other messengers that do that, like simplex)

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

This comparison makes some questionnable choices. It puts the presence of a web client as green, when actually this breaks the thread model of end-to-end encryption.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 70 points 1 day ago

Signal is an open-source privacy-focused end-to-end encrypted texting platform (so competing with SMS, WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, and similar). It’s developed by a donation-funded non-profit organization.

Signal is quite good compared to the competition, but it faces a lot of scrutiny because they make big promises about privacy and security so the people who care will really get into the details on that. Also IIRC there was a period when one of their competitors was trying to slander them more or less.

In general there’s nothing wrong with Signal and it’s quite a good option. If you really care about the privacy details you can always host your own instance (but that would require you to convince your friends to use your instance … it’s not federated).

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago

The deal is that they run their program in a very transparent and wherever possible verifiable way.
More details here: https://lemmy.world/comment/14775870

[–] salarua@sopuli.xyz 110 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Different people don't like it for different reasons. Some people don't like it because they think it has CIA financial backing (nope), and some people don't like it because it requires your phone number, therefore it is not private (the privacy it provides is more than sufficient for anyone not actively being persecuted by a Five Eyes state), and some people don't like it because it feels corporate (it's a 501c3 nonprofit, and how corporate it feels is subjective).

[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Accurate. And if you are being targeted by 5 eyes, your phone is probably fucked, one app vs another probably won't make a difference

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

If you ARE targeted by 5 eyes, you'd probably want to not be using your phone for communications, but Signal sorta requires you to, even if there's a desktop client.

However, I don't presume to know what would be the best option. SimpleX maybe, as the servers don't keep messages? Otherwise, I use Matrix because it's a lot more common and very easy to set up your own homeserver. However, again, if I had to hide something from a 5 eyes threat actor, they'd just find some vulnerability in my server config or, hell, maybe they can somehow sneakily get root access through the VPS provider itself, as I'm not hosting on my own hardware.

Honestly, meeting in person might be the most private solution if you've got that kind of a threat model.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

If you're being targeted by 5 eyes and you and your group don't know enough about tech to set up your own local communication servers or going serverless / not using internet, you're already caught or known about

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Signal doesn't keep messages on their servers either. The only data they have on you is your phone number and the unix time you made your account in.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

How do you know that?

It's what happens in the publicized source code, yes, but how do you know that's what's running in their servers? How do you know that all requests aren't saved?

Luckily Signal has e2ee and client side code is easy to verify, so they'd only have access to encrypted messages anyway, but if you're talking state level actors of the highest caliber, they might be able to crack Signal's encryption eventually.

Look, I'll agree that Signal is probably secure enough. It's definitely secure enough for me, I only run Matrix as a hobby because I like decentralization, my Matrix server is probably less secure than Signal. But I'm just saying we can never know for sure what code is running in THEIR servers, therefore we can never trust is 100%.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

And I hope for sure that they're never quietly forced to change that.

But again, if there were 3 letter agencies and gag orders involved with Signal, they probably wouldn't give regular law enforcement or courts any of the data they have.

Really, my only problem is that with a centralized service, there's no way to ever know for sure. There's luckily no evidence of anything nefarious happening at least.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah, on an ideal world, the matrix spec would be fixed and everyone would be on that.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

In an ideal world we also wouldn't have to worry about communications being listened in on lol

[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The code is open source, people look at the code, I've dug through their code a fair bit. It wouldnt be quiet, and it would take major code rewrites, it would be pretty obvious

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 69 points 1 day ago (9 children)

And some people don’t like it because it used to handle SMS on Android, and they removed that feature for security reasons.

[–] guy@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

This was such a dumb decision

[–] bg10k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That was a pretty wild decision

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Handling SMS and handling secure/encrypted messages could've made people think they communicate securely while relying on text messages instead.
Not handling SMS fixes this source of confusion and I applaud their decision.

[–] bg10k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago

There were ways to make it clear that it was insecure that didn't alienate an arguable majority of their casual userbase.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The problem is that most people don't want multiple text apps, they just want one. I had gotten a number of people using signal, and it was secure when we talked, but when signal dropped SMS, almost every one of them stopped using it, so then none of their conversations were secure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I think the number of people who care deeply about privacy and cannot tell the difference between an sms or signal message is minimal. There were plenty of ways signal could have highlighted DANGER UNSECURE CHANNEL if they had wanted to, or made it an off-by-default option, rather than drop SMS entirely. For myself and many other people it meant that family members dropped Signal rather than have an extra messaging app, and so I'm still stuck with WhatsApp on my phone...

[–] guy@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

If only the was some indicator for unsecure messages, such as a grey send button and an open padlock. 🙄

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Some people don’t like that they attached a crypto wallet to the app. I couldn’t care less and use the messenger daily!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 35 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Hey signal is better than most of the mainstream bs. I use it myself and I'm confident that the messages themselves are secure. However, it had issues.

Since we cannot verify the software they run on the server is the software that is open source then we must assume it is not.

We know for a majority of cases a phone number = a real identity. Signal implements sealed sender but since signal is a centralised point they can correlate the sealed sender extraordinarily easily. We must therefore assume signal knows when and who is communicating (We can verify they don't know what is being said) this therefore means signal could theoretically have a full social graph of real identities for every singe user.

This is of course after we remember signal received funding from BBG which is an organisation funded by the us government purely for the purpose of promoting american propaganda.

Also I believe they used to have federation but all evidence of this seems to have been wiped from the internet.

Signal can either adapt and prove themselves with more than a "trust me bro" or they can die. Just cos they are better than the alternatives does not mean we should not demand better.

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Since we cannot verify the software they run on the server is the software that is open source then we must assume it is not.

But that's like, the case for pretty much every messenger out there, outside of self-hosting, which will not be done by 99.99% of the general population.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

great explanation!

we must assume it is not.

100% - Security is about capabilities, not intentions!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Signal is great, you should use it.

Current problems with signal

  1. it's centralized
  2. your encryption key is stored in the cloud
  3. It's not federated

Details

  1. Means it's vulnerable to government pressure, it's not wrench proof

  2. means you can't really trust it for sensitive things, like if you were running the french government communication systems it would be foolish to use signal. Signal uses the power of Intel SGX enclaves to keep your private key safe, so your trusting Intel not to sign something bad, your trusting sgx to not have exploits, etc.

  3. Means it's a walled garden, and not open to self hosting.

Signal is the best main stream e2e out there, but it's not the last one we will ever see, something will replace it

[–] patatahooligan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Your encryption key can be stored encrypted in the cloud. This isn't a fundamentally bad thing, but they should allow better protection than the short pins they allowed last time I checked.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Your encryption key is stored ON-DEVICE. Not in "the cloud".

In fact, they just had a big hullabalu about the encryption key being stored in plain-text on their desktop client, which they've now resolved.

They now use https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage on the desktop client.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Both on device and in the cloud.

https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/

That is why when you switch phones and register again with signal using your "pin", you can send messages to your contacts without your verification number changing.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

What the hell, that makes it completely useless?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Yup, it was really big news and everyone was up in arms when they introduced SVR.

You can "opt out" in the settings, your key is still stored in the cloud but with a random BIP32 encoding or somesuch, still not a great practice, and whoever you talk to probably didn't opt out.

Signal is better then non e2e messengers, but its not the best architecture we could have. If your ok with Intel, and the Signal foundation being in a position to handover your keys to a TLA who then would have the capability to decrypt your messages - then its fine. So sexting is fine, probably prevents business intelligence, but if I was negotiating a MX US trade deal, I wouldn't use signal to talk about my strategy.

If your running a government communication system, 1,2,3 (But especially point 2) - mean you can't use signal.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

What the hell.

Thanks for the info!

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://github.com/signalapp/SecureValueRecovery2

The method has changed since that blog post.

So you are correct about it being stored in the cloud - they also seem to take much better care of it there, but when it's on someone elses server, your point stands - they can SAY they do anything. There's no way to actually test that. So thanks for the correction.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Anytime, I love it when lemmy is a collaborative space!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›