I hope more follow, would be funny if “all chat apps have to include a back door” leads to “there are no official chat apps”
Do you really think Meta would ignore the opportunity to both be the default option And have justification to read users’ messages?
Nah i don’t. I can hope though and the backdoor is a threat not just for consumers but also companies.
Haha! Do it if the EU does not give up on their Orwellian control!
Wait, I’m in the EU and I use Signal!
Basically, but what you forget is that Signal is also the standard for every Politician for their group chats because it’s secure, so the idea that they might lose their secure, leak-free* form of communication should worry MEPs and other politicians into taking action. Will it? I don’t know, politicians are very stupid when it comes to tech it seems.
* Baring screenshots
Screenshots, or just adding a journalist to the group chat.
Screenshots, or just adding a journalist to the group chat.
no software can prevent PEBKAC errors. It’s like locking a door and then giving the key to a thief and being shocked when people steal your shit
where are the companys lobbying against this btw?? i mean it is their data they will be leaked aswell
That is also a good point. Generally this is dangerous for all and sundry.
Signal CEO Whittaker said that in the worst case scenario, they would work with partners and the community to see if they could find ways to circumvent these rules. Signal also did this when the app was blocked in Russia or Iran. “But ultimately, we would leave the market before we had to comply with dangerous laws like these.”
This is why we need the ability to sideload apps.
I have become convinced by Cory Doctorow’s (tech writer and inventor of the term “enshittification”) argument that the fact that we’re even discussing this in terms of “sideloading” is a massive win for tech companies. We used to just call that “installing software” but now for some reason because it’s on a phone it’s something completely weird and different that needs a different term. It’s completely absurd to me that we as a society have become so accustomed to not being able to control our own devices, to the point of even debating whether or not we should be allowed to install our own software on our own computers “for safety.” It should be blatantly obvious that this is all just corporate greed and yet the general public can’t or refuses to see it.
TBH I was confused when I came across the term “sideloading” for the first few times because I thought it was something new. Part of the plan I guess. Damn.
That means nothing when the servers stop taking EU traffic. I get your point, but the real solution here is putting a bullet (double tap) in Chat Control, once and for all.
putting a bullet (double tap) in Chat Control,
Yes, please.
once and for all.
LOL, no. They’ll come back again with some other bullshit to Save the Children!™, it’s a never-ending whack-a-mole.
We need to get the right to privacy and control over our own devices enshrined as fundamental rights, like so many other rights the EU protects.
And they only have to win once, we have to fight and win every time they introduce a new variant. Its exhausting.
Signal has never done that. Whilst the app might not be available in some regions they’ve been proud to talk about how people can use it to avoid government barriers.
That means nothing when the servers stop taking EU traffic
I don’t use any of these apps, so I’m not quite sure how they work. But couldn’t you just make an app that keeps a local private and public key pair. Then when you send a message (say via regular sms) it includes under the hood your public key. Then the receiver when they reply uses your public key to encrypt the message before sending to you?
Unless the sms infrastructure is going to attempt to detect and reject encrypted content, this seems like it can be achieved without relying on a server backend.
It is potentially doable:
A short message is 140 bytes of gsm7-bit packed characters (I.e. each character is translated to “ascii” format which only take up 7-bit space, which also is packed together forming unharmonic bytes), so we can probably get away with 160 characters per SMS.
According to crypto.stackexchange, a 2048-bit private key generates a base64 encoded public key of 392 characters.
That would mean 3 SMSs per person you send your public key to. For a 4096-bit private key, this accounts to 5 SMSs.
As key exchange only has to be sent once per contact it sounds totally doable.
After you sent your public key around, you should now be able to receive encrypted short messages from your contacts.
The output length of a ciphertext depends on the key size according to crypto.stackexchange and rfc8017. This means we have 256 bytes of ciphertext for each 2048-bit key encrypted plaintext message, and 512 bytes for 4096-bit keys. Translated into short messages, it would mean 2 or 4 SMSs for each text message respectively, a 1:2, or 1:4 ratio.
- NIST recommends abandoning 2048-bit keys by 2030 and use 3072-bit keys (probably a 1:3 ratio)
- average number of text messages sent per day and subscriber seems to be around 5-6 SMS globally, this excludes WhatsApp and Signal messages which seems to be more popular than SMS in many parts of the world [quotation needed, I just quickly googled it]
Hope you have a good SMS plan 😉
That’s how signal started way back. Doesn’t work well - sms is terrible.
That is how the signal protocol works, it’s end to end encrypted with the keys only known between the two ends.
The issue is that servers are needed to relay the connections (they only hold public keys) because your phone doesn’t have a static public IP that can reliably be communicated to. The servers are needed to communicate with people as they switch networks constantly throughout the day. And they can block traffic to the relay servers.
I think they’re suggesting doing it on top of SMS/MMS instead of a different transport protocol, like Signal does, which is IP based
Which is what Textsecure was. The precursor to Signal. Signal did it too, but removed it because it confused stupid people.
I think SimpleX removes the need for static relays.
That makes the assumption you want to use your phone number at all. And I’m sure the overhead of encryption would break SMS due to the limits on character counts.
That makes the assumption you want to use your phone number at all
Can’t use Signal without a phone number.
You can run your own server for signal by the look of it
Not officially I don’t think. And even if you did, you’d need a customized app to point to said server, and then you wouldn’t be interoperable with the regular signal network
Most likely the reason, among others, they’re fighting tooth & nail to remove side loading too.
Are they?
Google will soon stop you sideloading unverified apps
unverified
ie, unsigned, so they are not
fighting tooth & nail to remove side loading too
Sideloading is still available: you can sign it yourself or bypass verification with
adbas they documented.Will Android Debug Bridge (ADB) install work without registration? As a developer, you are free to install apps without verification with ADB.
If I want to modify or hack some apk and install it on my own device, do I have to verify? Apps installed using ADB won’t require verification.
So, cool misinformation.
Bruh, you’re trying to sanewash this of all things? Right now I can go to any third-party app store and click install on an app without me nor the developer having to kiss the ring of Google or by extension the regulators (EU with Chat Control) that they are beholden to.
After this I’ll have to fucking install Google’s SDK on my computer, manually download application files, and deploy them to my device over USB with CLI commands. I will never ever ever be able to get friends and family access to third-party applications after this change.
And fuck, man, there’s not even a guarantee this solution will last, either. Google promised they would allow on-device sideloading back when they started adding deeper and deeper settings restrictions on enabling sideloaded app support, their word means fuck-all and you know that.
You misidentified your objection. It isn’t sideloading removal, which isn’t happening. It’s developer verification, which affects the sideloading that remains available.
Just because you don’t understand the value of verifying signatures doesn’t mean it lacks value.
I recall the same alarm over secureboot: there, too, we can (load our certificates into secureboot and) sign everything ourselves. This locks down the system from boot-time attacks.
I will never ever ever be able to get friends and family access to third-party applications after this change.
Then sign it: problem solved.
Developer verification should also give them a hard enough time to install trash that fucks their system and steals their information when that trash is unsigned or signed & suspended.
Even so, it’s mentioned only in regard to devices certified for and that ship with Play Protect, which I’m pretty sure can be disabled.
Google promised they would allow on-device sideloading
Promise kept.
their word means fuck-all and you know that
No, I don’t. Developers are always going to need some way to load their unfinished work.
That’s twice that you’ve missed the point that everyone else is saying. Read it again:
without me nor the developer having to kiss the ring of Google or by extension the regulators (EU with Chat Control) that they are beholden to
Google is irreversibly designating themselves the sole arbiter of what apps can be freely installed in the formerly-open Android ecosystem. It’s the same as if they just one day decided that Chromium-based browsers would require sites have a signature from Google and Google alone. I honestly don’t give a shit if they did it just on Pixel devices, but they’re doing it to the phones of ALL manufacturers by looping it into Play services.
I just don’t understand: why the fuck are you so pussy-whipped by Google that you’re stanning their blatant power grabs?
Adb is functionally useless for most people.
Signal is considered one of the most secure messengers.
I mean lol, they require a phone number to sign up, which you can only get with an ID in many countries. You chat with a gestapo officer and they know where you life.
Signal IS GARBAGE. Fucking garbage article, gaslighting bullshit. Fuck this timeline. Honestly this article is fucking terrorism.
You’re confusing privacy with anonymity.
You are confusing security with privacy. But keep on ranting if you like.
i would even more say with anonymity, considering the chats are still private and the main use case for messanger apps is to communicate with people who know who you are
There can be no security without privacy and a central server that can be extorted. But keep lying if you like.
Central server only gives you metadata. Therevare altrrnative clients if you don’t trust the official one.
Why are you giving gestapo your phone number instead of your username?
Try to think a bit before you post
I think it’s quite a good question to be honest - you can keep your phone number private from all your signal contacts and has been able to since early 2024.
https://thehackernews.com/2024/02/signal-introduces-usernames-allowing.htmlplans in the EU to allow messengers to have backdoors to enable automatic searches for criminal content
Head of the Signal app threatens to withdraw from Europe
A regular captain of industry for whom the automatic searchers of his zero-privacy messenger is one step too far lol
Even if signal was insecure and had no privacy (which it it secure and private), wouldn’t you still prefer people needed a warrant or some form of document that had to go through the court before your messages could be read?
Jesus lad relax.
Just let it happen
peek rage bait
About freedom, not freedom and various other things - might want to extend the common logic of gun laws to the remaining part of the human societies’ dynamics.
Signal is scary in the sense that it’s a system based on cryptography. Cryptography is a reinforcement, not a basis, if we are not discussing a file encryption tool. And it’s centralized as a service and as a project. It’s not a standard, it’s an application.
It can be compared to a gun - being able to own one is more free, but in the real world that freedom affects different people differently, and makes some freer than the other.
Again, Signal is a system based on cryptography most people don’t understand. Why would there not be a backdoor? Those things that its developers call a threat to rapid reaction to new vulnerabilities and practical threats - these things are to the same extent a threat against monoculture of implementations and algorithms, which allows backdoors in both.
It is a good tool for people whom its owners will never be interested to hurt - by using that backdoor in the open most people are not qualified to find, or by pushing a personalized update with a simpler backdoor, or by blocking their user account at the right moment in time.
It’s a bad tool even for them, if we account for false sense of security of people, who run Signal on their iOS and Android phones, or PCs under popular OSes, and also I distinctly remember how Signal was one of the applications that motivated me to get an Android device. Among weird people who didn’t have one then (around 2014) I might be even weirder, but if not, this seems to be a tool of soft pressure to turn to compromised suppliers.
Signal discourages alternative implementations, Signal doesn’t have a modular standard, and Signal doesn’t want federation. In my personal humble opinion this means that Signal has their own agenda which can only work in monoculture. Fuck that.
that’s a lot of words to say you generally accuse any programm that isn’t federated of having an agenda targeted at its userbase.
And lots of social woo-woo that doesn’t extend much further than “people don’t understand cryptography and think it’s therefore scary”.
A pretty weird post, and one which I don’t support any statement from because I think you’re wrong.
that’s a lot of words to say you generally accuse any programm that isn’t federated of having an agenda targeted at its userbase
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I used the word monoculture, it’s pretty good.
And lots of social woo-woo that doesn’t extend much further than “people don’t understand cryptography and think it’s therefore scary”.
Not that. Rather “people don’t understand cryptography, but still rely upon it when they shouldn’t”.
A pretty weird post, and one which I don’t support any statement from because I think you’re wrong.
I mean, you’ve misread those two you thought you understood.
Using mono ulture as a word doesn’t change the meaning here. If anything, its a pathway for the foal you ascribe.
I do give you credit about the second part - it would be better to have your own private key in chat apps, which isn’t handled by the app itself, at the very least to establish a shared key. I still think the existence of crypto is a massive boon to many, even in a “flawed” implementation with the “control” being on the side of corporations - tho if they are smart, they’d never store the keys themselves, not even hashes. Unless you’re part of the signal project, I doubt you know the exact implementation and storage of data they do.
Still, thanks for summarising your lengthy post, even if I had to bait you into it. Sometimes, brevity is key.
Using mono ulture as a word doesn’t change the meaning here. If anything, its a pathway for the foal you ascribe.
Of course it does. Federation can be a monoculture too (as it is with plants). A bunch of centralized (technically federated in IRC’s case, but united) services, like with IRC, can be not a monoculture.
Monoculture is important because one virus (of conspiratorial nature, like backdoors and architectures with planned life cycle, like what I suspect of the Internet, or of natural one, like Skype’s downfall due to its P2P model not functioning in the world of mobile devices, or of political and organizational one, like with XMPP’s standards chaos and sabotage by Google) can kill it. In the real world different organisms have sexual procreation, as one variant, recombining their genome parts into new combinations. That existed with e-mail when it worked over a few different networks and situations and protocols, and with Fidonet and Usenet, with gateways between these. That wasn’t a monoculture.
Old Skype unfortunately was a monoculture. Its clients for Linux (QT) and Windows and mobile things were different implementations technically, but with the same creators and one network and set of protocols in practice.
I still think the existence of crypto is a massive boon to many
That’s the problem, it’s not. You should factor psychology in. People write things over encrypted channels that they wouldn’t over plaintext channels. That means it’s not just comparison of encrypted versus plain, other things equal.
even in a “flawed” implementation with the “control” being on the side of corporations - tho if they are smart, they’d never store the keys themselves, not even hashes.
And that’s another problem, no. Crooks only steal your money, and they have adjusted for encryption anyway. They are also warning you of the danger, for that financial incentive. Like wolves killing sick animals. The state and the corporation - they don’t steal your money, they are fine with just collecting everything there is and predicting your every step, and there will be only one moment with no warning then you will regret. That moment will be one and the same for many people.
Unless you’re part of the signal project, I doubt you know the exact implementation and storage of data they do.
What matters is that the core of their system is a complex thing that is magic for most people. You don’t need to look any further.
Still, thanks for summarising your lengthy post, even if I had to bait you into it. Sometimes, brevity is key.
EDIT:
Still, thanks for summarising your lengthy post, even if I had to bait you into it. Sometimes, brevity is key.
Yeah, I just woke up with sore throat and really bad mood (dog bites, especially when the dog was very good, old and dying, hurt immunity and morale).
XMPP was sabotaged by google (and meta) but is still alive and well.
It was intended as an ICQ replacement, and its advocates even managed to sell it as that for many normies. It became supported, with federation or not, by many email service providers, social networks, and so on. Then that support mostly vanished. Its users percentages are not inspiring.
I think you mean IRC replacement.
I don’t think you understand anything you wrote about. Signal is open source, is publicly audited by security researchers, and publishes its protocol, which has multiple implementations in other applications. Messages are encrypted end-to-end, so the only weaknesses are the endpoints: the sender or recipients.
Security researchers generally agree that backdoors introduce vulnerabilities that render security protocols unsound. Other than create opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit, they only serve to amplify the powers of the surveillance state to invade the privacy of individuals.
I don’t think you understand anything you wrote about. Signal is open source,
I don’t think you should comment on security if “open source” means anything to you in that regard. For finding backdoors binary disassembly is almost as easy or hard as looking in that “open source”. It’s very different for bugs introduced unintentionally, of course.
Also why the hell are you even saying this, have you looked at that source for long enough? If not, then what good it is for you? Magic?
I suppose you are an illustration to the joke about Raymond’s “enough eyeballs” quote, the joke is that people talking about “enough eyeballs” are not using their eyeballs for finding bugs\backdoors, they are using them and their hands for typing the “enough eyeballs” bullshit.
“Given enough good people with guns, all streets in a town are safe”. That’s how this reads for a sane person who has at least tried to question that idiotic narrative about “open source” being the magic pill.
Stallman’s ideology was completely different, sort of digital anarchism, and it has some good parts. But the “open source” thing - nah.
is publicly audited by security researchers,
Exactly, and it’s not audited by you, because you for the life of you won’t understand WTF happens there.
Yes, it’s being audited by some security researchers out there, mostly American. If you don’t see the problem you are blind.
and publishes its protocol, which has multiple implementations in other applications.
No, there are no multiple implementations of the same Signal thing. There are implementations of some mechanisms from Signal. Also have you considered that this is all fucking circus and having a steel gate in a flimsy wooden fence? Or fashion, if that’s easier to swallow.
Can you confidently describe what zero-knowledge means there, how is it achieved, why any specific part in the articles they’ve published matters? If you can’t, what’s the purpose of it being published, it’s like a schoolboy saying “but Linux is open, I can read the code and change it for my needs”, yeah lol.
Security researchers generally agree that backdoors introduce vulnerabilities that render security protocols unsound.
Do security researches have to say anything on DARPA that funds many of them? That being an American military agency.
And on how that affects what they say and what they don’t say, what they highlight and what they pretend not to notice.
In particular, with a swarm of drones in the sky at some point, do you need to read someone’s messages, or is it enough to know that said someone connected to Signal servers 3 minutes ago from a very specific location and send one of those drones. Hypothetically.
Other than create opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit, they only serve to amplify the powers of the surveillance state to invade the privacy of individuals.
Oh, the surveillance state will be fine in any case!
And cybercriminals we should all praise for showing us what the surveillance state would want to have hidden, to create the false notion of security and privacy. When cybercriminals didn’t yet lose the war to said surveillance state, every computer user knew not to store things too personal in digital form on a thing connected to the Internet. Now they expose everything, because they think if cybercriminals can no longer abuse them, neither can the surveillance state.
Do you use Facebook, with TLS till its services and nothing at all beyond that? Or Google - the same?
Now Signal gives you a feeling that at least what you say is hidden from the service. But can you verify that, maybe there’s a scientific work classified yet, possibly independently made in a few countries. This is a common thing with cryptography, scientific works on that are often state secret.
You are also using AES with NSA-provided s-boxes all the time.
I suggest you do some playing with cryptography in practice. Too few people do, while it’s very interesting and enlightening.
I don’t think you should comment on security if “open source” means anything to you
Anyone can look at the source, brah, and security auditors do.
For finding backdoors binary disassembly is almost as easy or hard as looking in that “open source”.
Are you in the dark ages? Beyond code review, there are all kinds of automations to catch vulnerabilities early in the development process, and static code analysis is one of the most powerful.
Analysts review the design & code, subject it to various security analyzers including those that inspect source code, analyze dependencies, check data flow, test dynamically at runtime.
There are implementations of some mechanisms from Signal.
Right, the protocol.
Can you confidently describe
Stop right there: I don’t need to. It’s wide open for review by anyone in the public including independent security analysts who’ve reviewed the system & published their findings. That suffices.
Do security researches have to say anything on DARPA that funds many of them?
They don’t. Again, anyone in the public including free agents can & do participate. The scholarly materials & training on this aren’t exactly secret.
Information security analysts aren’t exceptional people and analyzing that sort of system would be fairly unexceptional to them.
Oh, the surveillance state will be fine in any case!
Even with state-level resources, it’s pretty well understood some mathematical problems underpinning cryptography are computationally beyond the reach of current hardware to solve in any reasonable amount of time. That cryptography is straightforward to implement by any competent programmer.
Legally obligating backdoors only limits true information security to criminals while compromising the security of everyone else.
I do agree, though: the surveillance state has so many resources to surveil that it doesn’t need another one.
In short - something “everyone being able to look upon” is not an argument. The real world analogies are landmines and drug dealers and snake oil.
Even with state-level resources, it’s pretty well understood some mathematical problems underpinning cryptography are computationally beyond the reach of current hardware to solve in any reasonable amount of time.
You are not speaking from your own experience, because which problems are solved and which are not is not solely determined by hardware you have to do it by brute force. Obviously.
And nation states can and do pay researchers whose work is classified. And agencies like NSA do not, for example, provide reasoning for their recommended s-boxes formation process. For example.
Solving problems is sometimes done analytically, you know. Mostly that’s what’s called solving problems. If that yields some power benefits, that can be classified, you know. And kept as a state secret.
Are you in the dark ages? Beyond code review, there are all kinds of automations to catch vulnerabilities early in the development process, and static code analysis is one of the most powerful.
People putting those in are also not in the dark ages.
Stop right there: I don’t need to. It’s wide open for review by anyone in the public including independent security analysts who’ve reviewed the system & published their findings. That suffices.
There are things which were wide open for review by anyone for thousands of years, yet we’ve gotten ICEs less than two centuries ago, and electricity, and so on. And in case of computers, you can make very sophisticated riddles.
So no, that doesn’t suffice.
They don’t.
Oh, denial.
Again, anyone in the public including free agents can & do participate. The scholarly materials & training on this aren’t exactly secret.
There have been plenty of backdoors found in the open in big open source projects. I don’t see how this is different. I don’t see why you have to argue, is it some religion?
Have you been that free agent? Have you participated? How do you think, how many people check things they use? How often and how deeply?
Information security analysts aren’t exceptional people and analyzing that sort of system would be fairly unexceptional to them.
Yes, but you seem to be claiming they have eagle eyes and owl wisdom to see and understand everything. As if all of mathematics were already invented.
Legally obligating backdoors only limits true information security to criminals while compromising the security of everyone else.
It’s not about obligating someone. It’s about people not working for free, and those people working on free (for you) stuff might have put in backdoors which it’s very hard to find. Backdoors usually don’t have the “backdoor” writing on them.
I do agree, though: the surveillance state has so many resources to surveil that it doesn’t need another one.
Perhaps the reason they have so many resources is that they don’t miss opportunities, and they don’t miss opportunities because they have the resources.
You sound paranoid but it doesn’t mean you aren’t right, at least to some extent.
So what’s your solution for secure messaging?Getting rid of monoculture via transports and cryptography being pluggable (meaning that the resulting system would be fit for sneakernet as well as for some kind of federated relays as well as something Kademlia-based, the point is that the common standard would describe the data structure, not transports and verification and protection).
I think you may need some sleep man. wtf are you talking about
Perhaps you need to get some sleep if you don’t understand what I’m talking about.
I get it messenger = gun wow i didnt know!
Holstering my phone now thanks
