this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
161 points (97.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36724 readers
1937 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 13 points 2 days 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 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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)
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 78 points 3 days 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).

[–] salarua@sopuli.xyz 112 points 3 days ago (10 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).

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 71 points 3 days 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.

[–] bg10k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That was a pretty wild decision

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago (7 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.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (3 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 (3 replies)
[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days 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 8 points 3 days 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 (8 replies)
[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (10 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

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

Signal likely does not have

CIA financial backing

But this is the kind of information that can be only dispositive.

That is, because we cannot prove a negative, and the only time you can be certain about whether an organization—especially one like the CIA—has provided funding for something, is after it has been proven.

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days 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)
[–] BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 days 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.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days 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

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 35 points 3 days ago (18 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.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

great explanation!

we must assume it is not.

100% - Security is about capabilities, not intentions!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] teolan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 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

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 3 days 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.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days 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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

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

What the hell, that makes it completely useless?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days ago

What the hell.

Thanks for the info!

[–] patatahooligan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days 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.

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is not „your encryption key“ because there is not only one.

The cloud backup (protected by the pin) includes the contact list, NOT your messages. Those are encrypted on device with a key that is on device and can not be recovered by anyone from the cloud.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] False@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

It's mostly minor shit, it's better than the alternatives unless you self-host (which has a boatload of other issues).

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (5 children)

The thing is I have yet to see any reasonable alternatives.

Threema is the closest but it’s not free-of-charge, so a non-starter for most of my friends.

The others are controlled by Russia (telegram) or Meta. What else even is viable?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›