I question the use of an instant messaging service hosted in another country for your armed forces, is that a good idea, especially now?
As good as Signal is I mean, you will want something under your control.
As good as Signal is I mean, you will want something under your control.
> This week, Brigadier General Mattias Hanson, the Swedish Armed Forces' CIO (Chief Information Officer), decided that calls and text messages that do not concern classified information should, as far as possible, be made using the Signal app. The decision aims to make it more difficult to intercept calls and messages sent via the telephone network.
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2025/02/forsvarsma...
Seems people were using SMS for those messages they are now advocating to use Signal for.
Also, seems they've done a review (obviously) but unclear if they had access to something internal from Signal to do the review, feels like they had to:
> The Signal application has been deemed by the Swedish Armed Forces to have sufficient security to make it difficult to intercept calls and messages.
I was a communications specialist for the Swedish Armed forces 10+ years ago, including a tour in Afghanistan and a tour in Kosovo.
We used radio links for internet that I can tell you, were more adversarial than friendly.
The Swedish military is highly capable when it comes to network communications. A small nation will have to think differently.
You could potentially use an instant messaging system in control by someone else, if you are willing and capable of sharing encryption keys with whomever you are going to communicate with beforehand.
>Because everything in Signal is end-to-end encrypted, we can rent server infrastructure from a variety of providers like Amazon AWS, Google Compute Engine, Microsoft Azure, and others while ensuring that your messages and calls remain private and secure.