Nor is it actually reasonable that we should expect to or rely on a few people to secure something that should be a fundamental and a fundamental right of communication. Not to rant to much, but it feels like going to parties (conferences) and talking about how much good you do and then being dismissive in the real world is how much of the security industry operates and that Signal has just become the latest excuse to why nothing has to be fixed.
I'll give him credit for the whatsapp integration though. More people in the field should consider working with companies where they can have a lot of impact.
Moxie says Signal works fine in China: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
Point. It doesn't really work because it only supports the Google Play Store, even as most Chinese phones can load apps directly (because of the fragmented ecosystem). So at least it doesn't work in the "prevent mass surveillance" way.
I guess maybe it works from the Apple App Store? (which isn't blocked)
"Signal itself works, but since Google is blocked no phones are sold with Google Play Store and even if you hack it onto your phone (which will break when it wants to update play services) it will drain your battery trying to connect to blocked services. Unless you use vpn (which will drain battery by itself and also eventually be blocked), but notifications probably still won't work because of the phones original firmware. So yes it works if you hack it onto your phone and then remove play services and checks the application manually. Until it wants to update the app that is, which is often.
Point. It doesn't really work because it only supports the Google Play Store, even as most Chinese phones can load apps directly (because of the fragmented ecosystem). So at least it doesn't work in the "prevent mass surveillance" way.
I guess maybe it works from the Apple App Store? (which isn't blocked)"
By giving NSA the only thing what they want: metadata from Google
>2) Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds.
Who don't have google services on their devices and don't use google chrome... yeah. Thanks for helping me so much.
The Senate is considering reauthorizing the law the NSA says authorizes it to collect hundreds of millions of online communications from providers like Facebook and Google as well as straight off the internet’s backbone:https://theintercept.com/2016/05/10/senate-kicks-off-debate-...
What metadata does Google get from Signal messages? The time/date you received a message, the size of the message... Is there anything else?
Google knows device A got messages at times X, Y, and Z, and device B got messages at times X+1, Y+2, and Z+1.5.
I'd be willing to bet with some statistical analysis over time, some pretty interesting data could be mined from that raw knowledge.
Speculating that Google may have access to my full network profile is a little off-topic, but yeah, if they did have that data, they could certainly do similar analysis on it.
Did anyone say they couldn't?
The person I initially replied to was talking about Google, GCM, E2E encryption, and that metadata won't reveal anything to Google except time/date of a single message and the message size. I pointed out there may be more information there.
I have no doubt that the NSA can do traffic analysis, or may have some of this data already... I'm not sure why that is in the replies to my comments in this thread.
Form a straight question and you'll get a straight answer.
I'm beginning to suspect the answer is "nothing", and that this whole thread is really just a superstitious allergy to GCM.
And even though your question is off-topic, I already answered it above.
Why would you accuse someone of being allergic to a technology when they are simply answering questions about it? If you disagree with the actual topic of discussion - that Google (not the NSA) might get more than just "message sizes and timestamps" out of an E2E-encrypted app which uses GCM messages - then have a normal conversation about it instead of bringing up the NSA repeatedly.
And if not, then stop making baseless and inflammatory accusations.
The parent poster of the post you initially replied to asserted that Signal was "giving NSA the only thing what they want: metadata from Google", so I guess that's where tptacek is coming from.
On a side note, Google can't actually know the message sizes because GCM is used without a payload.
Your side note also applies to that comment, but not mine, so I think it belongs there, not here.
Edit (as i can't post you reply to your answer):
And based on the NSA principle of the "thee levels of distance" everybody is reachable as long as some common numbers are in our contact lists which we happily upload.
The only thing Moxie had to do was not threaten them with legal action.
Instead, to publish an app there, you need to provide source code repository [2], and their build farm would build it, sort-of [3] providing guarantee that source code you can inspect is the same one you got running on your phone.
[1] There are exceptions, i.e. apps uploaded as binary-only (for example Firefox), but those come with big red warning that user sees before installing them.
[2] https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/FAQ_-_App_Developers#Will_my_a...
[3] Sort-of because reproducible builds for Android not here yet, so you can't just rebuilt it yourself and compare sha256, unfortunately.
You can sign with your own key on F-Droid, too – if you use their way of dealing with reproducible builds.
Which you do anyway if you use Google Play Services.
...
(So the compromise of F-Droid that results in a signed, compromised binary can't happen on Google Play, the apk is signed before it is sent to the store)
I worry about how influential people like Moxie Marlinspike are seemingly turning the modern 'mobile-first' development paradigm into a 'mobile-only' mindset. I don't believe in secure and private computing when you are making it very hard for people to use your tools on (or via) anything but the two dominant mobile operating systems.
"Yes, phone numbers are public enough that they are shared everywhere, but unique enough to lead to a single person not to speak of that persons movements. And "just use twilio" isn't a motivation for using phone numbers in the first place.
If he had said "the benefits of finding friends are greater than the privacy implications" or something like that there would at least been a case for a discussion, but now he's seemingly saying "oh, if you really care about privacy you could/should use a fake phone number"."
---
Personally, I don't know how "a fake phone number" setup can be implemented, especially in the countries where each phone number is assigned to one ID at the time of purchase, so to me "use a fake phone number" sounds like "let them eat cake."
This has already been discussed at length many times. Perhaps uola hasn't seen this blog post yet:
If he had said "the benefits of finding friends are greater than the privacy implications" or something like that there would at least been a case for a discussion, but now he's seemingly saying "oh, if you really care about privacy you could/should use a fake phone number".
Why is that? There's nothing about it in their faq.