News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol. Parent comment

Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by antocv on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @10:57AM (#12901219)
Nope it isnt, its up to me as user to decide when to update, what Signal/other-app can do in such case is provide a simple in-app messaging system "Hey there was a vulernaribility, read more about it here in this message". Then user can decide.

And not "hey user, take this update which contains backdoors since the main developers got gagged/blackmailed, trust us this time for real".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by tptacek on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @12:01PM (#12901868)
Again, the idea that Signal's developers were "gagged" or "blackmailed" is a lie, and you should be embarrassed to repeat it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by styyle14 on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @04:05PM (#12903936)
In a security sense, this is actually a very real concern with which even a warrant canary cannot help. Could you provide hard evidence that Signal's developers have NOT been "gagged" or "blackmailed"? I think such a proof would be infeasible at best.
[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:A Formal Security Analysis of the Signal Messaging Protocol by tptacek on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @12:49PM (#12902342)
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20accusations%20sh...
[ Parent | on HN ]