News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on About backdoors in crypto messengers. Parent comment

Re:About backdoors in crypto messengers by em3rgent0rdr on Thursday January 19, 2017 @08:01AM (#13435397)
well LibreSignal was shut down because Moxie didn't like them using WhisperSystem's servers. I guess the libre community could figure out how to setup and fund an alternative server, but since Signal's server code isn't federated, then I don't believe there would be a straightforward way to send messages between the two systems.

https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About backdoors in crypto messengers by temprature on Thursday January 19, 2017 @09:33AM (#13436032)
> but since Signal's server code isn't federated

The Signal server code has supported federation since the first commit in the git history. Whisper Systems' instance of the server doesn't federate with any other server anymore but there is nothing stopping the LibreSignal crowd from standing up their own network of federation-enabled servers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About backdoors in crypto messengers by vurpo on Thursday January 19, 2017 @09:04AM (#13435797)
Moxie and Whisper Systems is clearly against decentralization and federation, based on that blog post they wrote. This means it's unlikely that Signal is ever going to have any support for federation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About backdoors in crypto messengers by temprature on Thursday January 19, 2017 @09:42AM (#13436114)
> This means it's unlikely that Signal is ever going to have any support for federation.

Signal had support for federation. Their server was federated with Cyanogen's for a while[0]. That being the disaster it was is why that blog post happened and no one seems to be forthcoming with solutions to the problems they had.

[0] https://whispersystems.org/blog/cyanogen-integration/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About backdoors in crypto messengers by angry_octet on Thursday January 19, 2017 @08:23AM (#13435545)
Obviously they can run an alternative server, and if their version is sufficiently more attractive people will switch their client.

They could 'solve' all these usability problems, fix the use of google interfaces the tin foil hat brigade detest, and deploy it on a non-existent non-proprietary secure phone platform. Oh and make it federated but keep it immune from spam. Yeah, seems like that is a bit hard.

[ Parent | on HN ]