• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I just read the post (you linked) 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.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Secure within the context of a certain threat model.

        The French government does not endorse signal for government communication as an example

        And I would highly suspect the Russian government would not use signal either.

        I cite both of these as examples of threat models that can’t ignore some of the potential capability of the signal.

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.
  • kia@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • AprilF00lz@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?

      • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Signals UX is no better than SMS apps. People I’ve tried to convert all say the same thing.

          ~~But it’s still the most secure/privacy minded messenger. ~~

          • Delusion6903@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Signal has read receipts, reactions and typing indicators. That’s 90% of what any messenger needs. It also let’s you schedule texts. I do wish it would do reminders and pinch to resize text though.

        • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

  • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?