Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

People keep pushing signal because it is supposedly secure. But it runs on platforms that are so complex with so much eco system garbage that there is no way know even within a low percentage of confidence if you've done everything required to ensure you are communicating just with the person you think you are. There could be listeners at just about every layer and that is still without looking at the meta-data angle which is just as important (who communicated with who and when, and possibly from where).

View on HN

I've raised concerns about the Signal project whitewashing risks such as keyboard apps or the OS itself, and the usual response is that it's my fault for using an untrustworthy OS and outside Signal's scope.

At some point there need to be a frank admission that ETE encrypted messaging apps are just the top layer of an opaque stack that could easily be operating against you.

They've made encryption so slick and routine that they've opened a whole new vector of attack through excessive user trust and laziness.

Encrypting a message used to be slow, laborious and cumbersome; which meant that there was a reticence to send messages that didn't need to be sent, and therefore to minimise disclosure. Nowadays everything is sent, under an umbrella of misplaced trust.

There is nothing secure about sending encrypted content to notifications. If it were secure, it would only notify that there is a message, with no details included.

Once again there is a trade off between security and user convenience.

If security is the main differentiator then app should start in the most secure mode possible. Then allow users to turn on features while alerting them to the risks. Or at least ask users at startup whether they want "high sec mode" or "convenient mode".

As the app becomes more popular as a general messaging replacement, there will be a push towards greater convenience and broad based appeal, undermining the original security marketing as observed here.

Exactly, but, sooner or later the cost of support overcomes the need for security, that's what is driving this. Popularity is the main reason signal is now less secure than it was in the past.

> If it were secure, it would only notify that there is a message, with no details included.

You're right. This is configurable via settings, but is not the default state.

That said: if I can get friends and family to use Signal instead of iMessage, that gives me the opportunity to disable those notifications and experience more security benefits.

But I agree with your point: most people think that Signal is bulletproof out of the box, and it's clearly not.

You only control one side of any conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com