22

Anyone else wondering?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ebc@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago

Signal had something good when it could simply be your default messaging app on your phone, and it'd transparently send either encrypted messages, or plain-text SMS. Now that they've removed SMS, they've just turned into a worse Whatsapp (because nobody is on it). Network effects are important in messaging apps.

[-] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 19 points 1 year ago

Trust me I know, having my whole family try it out and then have them pull that later was a punch in the face

[-] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 8 points 1 year ago

Was that the punch in the face, or was it all the morons intentionally misinterpreting this argument and saying "but why would u want to send nonsecure messages are you aware SMS isn't secure it's like so insecure to send SMS bro it's not secure it's like literally a security risk bro SMS isn't secure at all and also are you aware SMS security is poor"

[-] dismalnow@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not doubting that pushy idiots are going to pushy idiot, but I think you've strawmanned the actual reason hard enough.

Most people who want it back don't need, want, or understand why secure messaging exists.

Here's the simple facts:

SMS is not secure, or private.
Signal is for secure, private comms.

As mildly inconvenient as it is, Signal explained their reasoning in great detail, and I happen to agree: There should never have been an insecure option on a secure messaging app.

[-] ebc@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Well, I happen to disagree. I'm a privacy-conscious person, but I'm not an activist. Most of my contacts in real life (i.e the people I need a messaging app to talk to) are non-technical, and not really privacy-conscious. They're not going to install a different app just to talk to me. The big draw of TextSecure (before it became Signal) was that they could just set that as their default SMS app, and it'd magically start to send encrypted messages if the other end was also using TextSecure, and they had to change exactly 0 of their habits.

I guess it depends on how you view it:

  1. Move as many people as possible over to encrypted comms with the least friction possible, or
  2. Provide a niche secure messaging platform for niche activists with niche needs.

I thought the goal was 1, but turns out it was 2. All my contacts are now back to Facebook Messenger...

[-] poop 2 points 1 year ago

It sounds like you're slightly mis-remembering this oft-cited Hacker News comment from Moxie from 2015. I'm going to quote the main bit here because honestly a lot of people in this thread could stand to think about it:

If we were going to rank our priorities, they would be in this order:

  1. Make mass surveillance impossible.

  2. Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds.

It's not that we don't find #2 laudable, but optimizing for #1 takes precedence when we're making decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago

Question: are you missing the point deliberately, or is it genuine obliviousness?

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side. Depending on where you live, this could translate to a simple mistake resulting in imprisonment or worse. It's very important that a "secure messaging app" only allow secure messaging.

You, like myself, probably live in an area where accidentally sending a message critical of the government over an insecure message would not have any tangible consequences, so perhaps you're weighing the convenience as more important due to lack of perspective.

[-] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

By that logic tho, you can also accidentally open a different app and send an sms, because on Android all the apps need to look and behave basically exactly the same for some reason.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago

You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.

I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.

The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side.

Skill issue. If it's too hard for some people to pay attention to what they're doing and use a tool correctly, they can buy a Vsmile. This is all ignoring the fact that no human being could possibly fuck it up on Signal unless they're too illiterate to send text messages—or indeed use a cell phone—in the first place.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ChaosSauce@wizanons.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Totally agree. Good opsec is all about building good habits. Having 1 app for secure and a different app for normal creates a healthy compartmentalization in the mind for ease of building and maintaining habits.

[-] dismalnow@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Indeed.

It's a very basic trade that it seems few understand. You MUST trade a bit of convenience to increase your security, or mistakes will happen.

[-] Encode1307@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Same here. It's pretty frustrating.

[-] brill@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

My family still uses it vs texting. We like the video calls as well. :)

[-] Steve@compuverse.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This always struck me as strange thinking.
Are most people really unable to understand and use different messengers with different contexts and groups?

Honestly I use a few myself. My job has Tiger Connect. I use Signal with all my family and friends. Then I use SMS for some companies automatic notifications. It's pretty simple and easy.

[-] ebc@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Well, yes. But when all your friends are already on Facebook Messenger, good luck getting them to install Signal only to talk with you. Network effects are important; a messaging app has no use when you have nobody to message on the app. Supporting SMS was taking advantage of its network effect, and I don't think their network was big enough to be self-sustaining for most users (it wasn't in my case, my only contact in there is my wife).

[-] Steve@compuverse.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Convincing people to leave Facebook Messenger isn't that hard. Just let them know Zukerberg and everyone at Facebook can see everything they send.

It is easier with a whole group of friends. If none of your friends known each other, you should work on that for other reasons. Groups of friends are better in general.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I don't see the issue? Just use your native messenger for SMS. Why does it need to be part of Signal? It just makes things convoluted and confusing to have an unsecure messaging service inside an otherwise secure messaging app.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gelberhut@lemdro.id 18 points 1 year ago

Then, it would be called matrix? 🤔

[-] poop 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Only if the signal crew collectively fell down, hit their heads and forgot about their whole mission of protecting metadata privacy. Matrix is a privacy nightmare (compared to signal). It offers optional encryption for the actual text of the messages sent, but everything else from room membership lists to reactions are unencrypted and stored forever by the server. The end to end encrypted message feature was bolted on after the rest of the thing was built, and it shows.

We’ve seen https://signal.org/bigbrother/ where signal proudly shows that they don’t have any metadata about their users to turn over. There’s a reason we don’t see anything like this for matrix.

Matrix is good at federating, but fucking horrible at keeping your information safe.

[-] derin@lemmy.beru.co 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think you understand why current servers operate the way they do.

Matrix server implementations function on the idea that your data lives in the server, so of course it needs that information (who is here, who is talking to whom) - or else, as an example, if you lost your devices you wouldn't be able to recover your info (like on Signal).

I don't want Signal's Peer-to-Peer solution. I own my server, so I'm okay with keeping my own metadata. I want my communications with others to be encrypted, but recoverable if I lose access to my devices.

I think what you want is a Peer to Peer encrypted solution, which Matrix is working on, but isn't available yet.

Follow this site for info on Matrix's progress in that space: https://arewep2pyet.com/ What you're looking for is info on Pinecone.

TLDR: poop wants a peer-to-peer encrypted network, Matrix is not that (yet).


Further reading:

Matrix's architecture today means that the servers can see who their users are talking to, and when - but not what (assuming it's end-to-end encrypted). Just like a PGP mail service like Protonmail. Because Matrix stores conversation history on the server (unlike Signal) so you can get at it when from multiple logins, you end up with that metadata stored on the server.

We're fixing this by working on P2P Matrix (as per the blog post - it's one of the main initiatives that the funding is going towards). https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix explains how P2P addresses the metadata problem.

(...)

[-] poop 2 points 1 year ago

Not sure why you think I don’t understand why matrix operates the way it does and I’m especially not sure why you think you know what I want. To help clear it up: I want a secure, decentralized encrypted messaging system that doesn’t let anyone but the participants access any information about their conversations, just like everyone else. What I DONT want is people misrepresenting the current landscape, as many in this thread are doing. End to end encryption of the actual text of the messages is not at all good enough, and Signal has made enormous strides in demonstrating alternative options. I’m not a fan of the usual things people don’t like about signal (phone numbers, centralized server architecture, mixed feelings on removing SMS from Android). Matrix addresses almost all of these, and does a lot of other cool things, but does so at the cost of a lot of privacy. I want people to stop acting like matrix and signal offer the same level of privacy. I get it, decentralization is good, but can we please not misrepresent the offerings of current decentralized solutions compared to current centralized ones just because we like the architecture of one more?

I’ve operated matrix servers and I’ve looked at the database to see what it knows. It knows a lot, and if a service provider was compelled to turn that over, it could be bad. We should be honest about what the server knows so people can make rational decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not super familiar with matrix, is it end to end encrypted likesignall?

[-] WheelcharArtist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes it is. But there are also unencrypted chats/rooms

[-] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Oh that's actually really awesome

[-] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I seen in a matrix talk on YouTube they are bringing interactive multi user vr to matrix too and it can be end to end encrypted because its built on matrix

[-] poop 12 points 1 year ago

All of the people recommending matrix don’t understand why signal is secure. Matrix offers the same level of end to end encryption as Facebook Messenger, but it’s federated so people who care more about federation than privacy like to misrepresent its safety

[-] caboose20@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I will admit I don't understand why Signal would be more secure than Matrix. I understood Signal to have E2EE just like Matrix.

[-] poop 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's fair! If you're on these type of forums, there are a lot of Signal haters and a lot of Matrix lovers, and sometimes they like to make confusing or just straight up inaccurate statements. The crux of the issue is not about the encryption of the text of messages themselves, which both platforms are capable of doing. Personally, I wish there was something like Signal but without the centralization, but the reality is such a thing doesn't exist.

Signal (as in the Signal server and by extension the legal entity behind Signal) does not know what groups you're in, does not know who's in your contact list, does not know which groups you are sending messages to, doesn't know which groups exist, and can't tell the difference between a message, a reaction, a read receipt, a remote delete ("delete for everyone"), an edit... etc. Signal doesn't have a way to send anything between two parties that the server can see. Signal has received a number of subpoenas which they typically fight, and if/when they lose they over all of the information they have about the subject of the subpoena, which tends to be whether or not they have a Signal account, when they registered the account and when they last used it. You can see these at https://signal.org/bigbrother/

Matrix (as in the Matrix server you're registered on as well as the servers of whoever you're talking to, for groups that means everyone in the group, notably this is not necessarily the same as the legal entity behind Matrix, but in practice a LOT of people use matrix.org for their home server so it frequently is) can see basically all of the things I listed above. The text of normal messages is encrypted. The group membership list isn't encrypted. reactions aren't encrypted. read receipts aren't encrypted. Group membership lists are stored in plain text.

[-] gelberhut@lemdro.id 2 points 1 year ago

Well, matrix, does not require your phone. You, theoretically, can selfhost a matrix server.

On the other hand, one can say that signal provides same level of e2e encryption and protection as WhatsApp, right?

[-] poop 5 points 1 year ago

"theoretically" being the operative word here. Most people don't. And if they did, they wouldn't be able to talk to anyone else without the metadata getting copied to that person's server. Probably okay if it's between two information security experts who operate their secure own servers, but in reality most people don't do that. This could be summarized as: Matrix offers a lot of easy ways to be less secure, Signal does not.

As for WhatsApp, I know they have paid or maybe still do pay Signal for their encryption. I believe Facebook Messenger did or does as well. I'm not sure what the actual implementation looks like and neither is anyone else, because it's closed source.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Not a fan of giving my phone number to federate to every server.

Session is like Signal but decentralised (like Tor, not like Fedi) and without the phone no requirement. That sounds better to me.

[-] dismalnow@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Appreciate the heads up on session.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] comcreator@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Matrix is the federated alternative to Signal.

However it would be cool to see Signal implementing their encryption into Matrix and turning Signal into a Matrix provider, becoming a federated messanger.

[-] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I believe Matrix already supports olm which is the same encryption technique used by Signal. The main issue with Signal becoming federated is that in order to make the federation work, a lot of metadata will leak and that could be a cause for concern when using Signal as a private messenger for important things like whistleblowing, etc.

[-] nickavem@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Though the fediverse is good for a lot of things, security is not one of them. Maybe this will change in the future, but right now there are just too many chances for bad actors.

[-] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

I heard that's the case, but hey it's FOSS maybe it'll change in the future

[-] hitagi@ani.social 7 points 1 year ago

Do you mean decentralized or federated? I don't really see how Signal would work with something like ActivityPub where so much information is meant for public viewing.

There's also Matrix if you're looking for just decentralized and federated.

[-] mossy_capivara@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

I was thinking more in the finding contacts way since Signal only uses phone numbers

[-] hitagi@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago

Try Matrix or XMPP.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

28502 readers
354 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS