> Criticizing a security-sensitive tool like Signal is tricky, as it might be misconstrued as a call to abandon it, and move to alternatives that might be in fact worse. But here, at a hacker conference and with little risk of causing confusion and diverting users towards less secure platforms, can we please have an honest conversation about Signal's problems? And how 5 years after that blogpost, moxie's centralization has not solved them?..
Apparently the good intent they assume in a hacker conference does not extend to a hacker forum.
Their main complaints are 1) Lack of good clients, driven by a mostly closed ecosystem 2) Lack of good federation which brings down the whole network occasionally.
These are hardly knocking anything related to the security that Signal provides, and definitely does not count as "Bitching", as these are real problems that are absolutely good things to fix on top of a fantastic product.
"I believe signal could have been as resoundingly successful in bringing e2e encryption to the masses as it was if it had done X and Y differently and tweaked Z." Is quite different to the critics around here who filled a page with comments without anyone acknowledging that they did pretty good in this one dimension. (Did ok in some others too, imho, but this one dimension is off the damn charts and there can be zero argument about that. They did it when it hadn't been done). So yeah, go right ahead, bitch all you like about my bitching about the bitching going on about signal. Please do. Nobody is being abused or disrespected here except maybe Moxie. I reckon it's happening to Moxie. Often.
From "You can grumble all you want in this article but those complaints pale in comparison to Signals contributions which are above your trivial reproach."
To "No product is above reproach, your complaints are entirely valid and I was saying this all along."
It's also possible I just missed the entire point of GGP entirely, for which I apologize if so.
> those complaints pale in comparison
> Signals contributions which are above your trivial reproach
There's the problem. I never said that or indeed anything like it. Quotes are really out of line there. Eg Never mentioned TFA. Never said complaints were invalid, never described all reproach as trivial in comparison.
> your complaints are entirely valid and I was saying this all along.
Nope not that either. Actually read it again maybe, just what it actually says?
When considering criticism of decisions that led to a billion people using e2e encryption and not mentioning that those decisions directly led to a billion people using e2e encryption then yeah, maybe think about whether that criticisim has been well thought out. At the time of writing there were about 50-100 comments all critical of signal policy and app functioning with nobody mentioning even once that maybe some aspects of that policy, yeah, they actually worked a little bit in a way that was pretty useful.
>It's also possible I just missed the entire point of GGP entirely, for which I apologize if so.
Fair. I'm sure that's general it should be and not directed to me.
That would be because this isn’t a hacker forum in the sense the OP was using. The OP was using hacker in the classic sense, security folks, the culture is different within that space compared to this one. (Not better or worse mind you just different with different values and understandings)
Really? I'd say that the classic meaning of "hacker" is what we have on HN. http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/hacker.html
Yes, some are trying to sell themselves, which may be distasteful to you but people need to eat.
Others are activists, pushing their views.
Others here are just reading and occasionally commenting, like myself.
But there are also a lot of very passionate and smart people here who are pushing boundaries and limits with what they can do in terms of hardware and software.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071025200829/http://listserv.l...
I would disagree.
Those might be security adjacent, but i'm not sure i would call them core security concerns.
Both of these are very conscious, deliberate choices on Signal's part though. You can't "fix" them without fundamentally changing what Signal is trying to be. Demanding "fixes" for things without thinking about, or acknowledging the reasons why the current state of the world is how it is is just self-entitled "bitching".
Signal is a stunning success. If you or anyone does better I will cheer and yell about your success often.
>We now know there were zero-click iMessage exploits being used by oppressive governments to target politicians, journalists and activists.
Firstly citation needed please. Secondly, great, should they have been using email and pgp? Or google chat? Or are you saying the NSA should have just had all comms on their servers without going to any further and targeted effort.
Any software project can be criticised. And _should_ be. Just when you do it don't overlook its success which for signal was the first one that actually worked after decades of efforts. Now go do better.
That is what those criticizing it disagrees with, at least in that area. It is not a stunning success at letting you communicate with someone without disclosing a phone number.
> If you or anyone does better I will cheer and yell about your success often.
And that is what people are criticizing about the ecosystem when they say that it is hard to run your own client or infrastructure.
> Firstly citation needed please.
Search "zero-click iMessage exploit" and pick your favorite source.
> Secondly, great, should they have been using email and pgp? Or google chat?
Most already do because Signal doesn't really cater to other use cases. When people say they want federation or different clients it is often because they want to replace things like e-mail.
Which it has NEVER claimed to do.
The goalposts moved so fast my neck broke.
Basically you’re you’re shifting anytime you get pinned down and it shows.
I am happy to argue the points but don't make up some characterization. It wasn't "then", "now" or "shifting". I've made the same points all along.
You bringing them into the argument doesn’t make it valid.
Basically hijacking a discussion with irrelevant points that vaguely support your case is not valid.
OP’s point, the article is incorrect because of the value brought by E2E encryption to the masses, then various debate on how that wasn’t such a big deal, or was done wrong.
Phone numbers and iPhone zero days have nothing to do with the impact of Signal’s e2e.
Pegasus.
Is it bad to quote yourself twice in the same thread?
"... success of literally ever other attempt to bring e2e to the masses."
Attempt to bring e2e to the masses. How many actually using it is that metric.
Before open whisper & signal: how about number of people I knew with whom I could communicate securely with using pgp. 1. Total number of people in the world who could do it. A few thousand tops? You reckon it got to 10k, 100k. I can't imagine it got anywhere near a million...
Today: Number of people doing it everyday without thinking about it. Over a billion.
Sometimes metrics are so overwhelming that you have to tip your hat to it. This says nothing about any other dimensions of analysis other than "Number of people actually using e2e." It's a hell of a metric we can give credit to Moxie & co. for. That /one/ dimension is just wow. People tried before, for decades. It just didn't work out on that one metric. Something would have to be pretty bad to make that metric not dominate the discussion of overall success. But yeah, this is just the success of getting people using e2e and it's a massive achievement.
Signal being successful because it is implemented by different parties and therefor used by many people seems more a counterargument to the state of Signal because it would suggest that Signal would be better if more people could use it for more things.
pretty bad, actually.
The reported number of users does nit equate with number of securely e2e protected users
And I'm fairly sure that's not what the poster above me actually meant, anyway. When you say "it's not open", do you really think they're saying that in the context of not knowing that the source code we can see is the code that's actually running on the server? If that's what they actually meant, then why would they say that at all, since literally no third-party service is "open" by that definition?
They clearly are under a misconception that Signal is closed source or that the protocol is secret or something. They're probably thinking of Telegram, which IIRC, is not open.
The best thing Signal has done is made everyone else adopt E2EE. Signal shouldn't be playing catch-up, they should be pushing others to follow suit. Companies like Meta say that they need data to protect users but Signal ,,demonstrates'' that this is not necessary. So continue in this direction. I know many want to just keep Signal as it is (Signal purists) but Moxie is right. The ecosystem is moving. Staying still will just get you killed.
[0] https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402
Yeah, I don't know about that. I started using Signal about 6 years ago, I think. I remember back in the day there was a stable native Telegram desktop client that just worked (keeps working without single issue for years) and web WA client that just worked if the phone is online (mildly annoying, but very rarely a problem). Over time Signal developed an Electron-based client that annoyed me every time I use it. It requires relinking to the phone, it can't decrypt messages read from mobile, it can't send messages, it can send them, but the other party can't read them. I try it again every few months hoping that they fix these problems. Instead I get stickers and reactions =/
Yeah, I get it, multi-client encryption is hard, but WA seems to solve it using the same protocol. What I experience with Signal desktop client reminds me of Jabber OTP client compatibility issues 10 years ago. I almost stopped using Signal despite shiny E2EE. 90% of my texting is from desktop. I need it to work reliably. I don't care about stickers and reactions.
> Yeah, I don't know about that. […] What I experience with Signal desktop client reminds me of Jabber OTP client compatibility issues 10 years ago.
Like for the sibling commentator, the desktop client has been working for me largely flawlessly. Sure, doing backups on the desktop (and restoring them) would be nice, and no longer needing a phone number or needing to link it to a phone would be even nicer.
Meanwhile, though, WhatsApp doesn't even have a desktop client to begin with and their web UI is still mediocre and unsafe.
And let's not even speak about E2E encryption (or the general state of security) in Telegram.
So yes, I would argue most of Signal's features are more than on par with WhatsApp and Telegram.
If it's browser based just let me run it in a tab.
While I agree the app is a resource hog for what it is, I haven't ever had to relink my phone after the first time unless I reinstalled the app or got a new phone (duh). As for unreadable messages, I use Signal daily and have never had that issue once. I have had that issue multiple times using Whatsapp however.
It's taken a few years, and there may be a few bugs left that I don't know about (out of sight, out of mind), but Matrix uses the same double-ratchet encryption, and has solved multi-client encryption with cross-signing. Some clients may be imperfect, but this is the price we pay for being able to develop other clients - something Signal steadfastly refuses.
I honestly don't know what these features are. The only thing I hear from normal people is stickers and "but none of my friends are there." This is a genuine question because I can't figure out what others have that Signal doesn't.
The "backup" system Signal has is a joke for everyone outside the paranoid community. Every messaging platform has a single chance of losing users data before they switch away. Signal does it constantly.
The idea of any of my contacts logging every message I ever sent to them, and backing them up in clear text on whatever dumb cloud provider they're using this week, is a pretty scary one.
This arrogance is the worst cancer on "privacy" software. Essence of privacy is _control_ over data, not destruction.
It’s also awkward to try to herd a conversation partner from chat to email at some arbitrary point when you think the conversation is veering in a direction where preservation is important.
I use Signal as my main messaging app now, but even for the contacts on there I have to fall back to Whatsapp to share our live locations in order to find each other. Doesn't happen very often but it is a useful feature that it is missing.
Thanks for that.
Is it really that hard to tell someone where you are with words?
Yes, people need it. Had to use Telegram for it recently, because Matrix didnt have it at that time, and I don't have WhatsApp.
Just tell them your final destination verbally, and you're done.
Sometimes its about the journey, not the destination.
"From the XYZ Street beach entrance, we're about 100 yards north, with a blue umbrella."
Using realtime GPS tracking for this sort of thing is fetishizing technology to overoptimize a problem that was trivially solved for millenia using verbal offsets from known landmarks, while at the same time introducing and normalizing grave privacy concerns in society.
Good luck at long beaches where there are endless swaths of identical copy-paste tress, tents, deck chairs and umbrellas, without any unique elements to use as bearings. I would hate to have to send people on wild goose chases in the hot sun.
>wearing a red shirt
You've obviously never experienced how difficult it is to be found by your friends if you're short in a crowd of tall people at a concert or any sort of wide festival/gathering. Telling people what color your shirt is doesn't do anything to help if they can't see you until they're within 1m of you. And that's without it being dark at night. It's like finding Waldo IRL but more difficult.
> fetishizing technology to overoptimize a problem that was trivially solved for millenia
Ok Fred Flintstone, you do you, just let me enjoy the modern comforts of current technical achievements please and you feel free to follow the stars and buffalo tracks with your friends.
I think Apple has done a really good job with this — you can share your location for an hour, the rest of the day, or forever. I use the “share for an hour” option all the time.
This is already possible (on Android at least), and has been for a long while.
Long press on one, press "select" which allows you to select other photos, select the photos you like, and then press forward.
One issue with that is that if multiple photos are grouped together, you have to select the whole group, but you can definitely forward multiple photos in one go.
Approaching valid criticism from that angle, with that attitude only throws a big jug of fuel to the already volatile fire.
We are having these these kinds of arguments on another piece of software which I won't name, and it's leading to the same outcome. No productive discussion, no progress, nothing.
Signal achieved good things, yes. Kudos for them coming that far. But if there is a considerable volume of same feedback, it's at least beneficial to listen to them intently, ponder and then sleep upon them, and draw some insight out of it.
A kind reply and acknowledgement would be very fit and handsome jest, but it's not a must.
You might be thinking that Signal is a flawless piece of software, even better than the sliced bread itself, but not everyone is on the same boat with you, and this is the way it should be. If this thing is an infrastructure for some people, and use it that much, the users have at least the right to make their opinions heard.
There is no path for non-tech users to start using Element/Matrix or some Fediverse thing. These are excellent concepts, but they will remain there, as nice ideas. Because they are not a quick three-step process of Download -> Setup -> Chat with Friend
"Why am I pasting a URL given by you in this app, will you be able to track all my private conversations as well? Hell, will you be able to hack into my phone now?"
A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, but at the end of the day this whole thread is about friend groups talking to each other. This just wouldn't be a realistic line of questioning in this scenario imo.
There is terms and service, legal systems etc for corporations. There is no such thing for individual server admins. They are right to feel weird about their friend running their private chats as opposed to a company.
People implicitly trust friends and especially family to be generally good and not misuse their information. Far more than they would trust a random stranger or corporation, regardless of legal systems, terms of service, privacy policy, etc. They are also generally grateful that you're providing a service they can use and can handle issues coming up moreso than from others.
And, of course they would, you've built up years of personal trust and relationships with them, which goes far deeper than anything professional.
Source: I do this. For multiple services. For multiple people. But also, just basic common sense.
The proof is all around us. People don’t want to use services run by their friends. Otherwise they would.
I trust my brother with my life, but I would prefer to use Instagram DMs rather than a chat service he is running on a VPS. There is so much that can go wrong with a service like that. No offense to him, but I’d rather a company handle it where people are getting paid to do it.
Generally speaking, if someone is running a service out of the goodness of their heart, they are doing it as a hobby. And you have to wonder why it is so fun to them? They enjoy handling peoples’ chats? Seems a lil weird. I love my brother, but just seems a little off.
People do think like this.
And /r/homelab (and the numerous spinoffs) would highly disagree with you; the fact that they exist is what you would call "the proof" which is "all around us".
The general users do not care, just like how no-one cares about the inventor of the smartphone and Apple repackaged it and brought out the iPhone to billions of users.
Therefore, WhatsApp is the chosen one because in reality and contrary to what the herd believe here on HN, research [0] shows that even when Signal was boosted by some famous people, 'the masses' gave up using Signal when migrated and instead moved back to WhatsApp or Telegram.
I think Signal has done a terrible job at selling itself and retaining its users migrated from other messengers and was only riding on the back of boosters that don't even use it, which allowed Signal to get distracted and rush and push in a private cryptocurrency project useful to criminals and scammers to execute a pump and dump scheme for the founders.
The level of delusion in the comments about that so-called 'mass migration' or great 'messenger migration' to Signal seems to be as present as a haunted house.
What a shame. And nope, anecdotes is not evidence.
[0] https://medium.com/@carlagriggio/the-great-messaging-app-mig...
> but only 0.5% uninstalled WhatsApp. Let me put these numbers into perspective: if we translated this result to the entire population of WhatsApp users (approx. 2 billion), we’d be talking about 500 million users trying to flee from WhatsApp, and only 10k uninstalling it
0.5% of 2 billion is 10 million not 10k, which incidentally corresponds quite closely (within order of magnitude) to the number of people who downloaded signal at the time. As a side note if someone argues with numbers and is 3 orders of magnitude of in their calculation are their conclusions still valid? It doesn't give a good look.
I do think Moxie is right though and the talk is wrong on the core issue which is federation doesn’t work as well unless you really boil the ocean to do it (urbit) and even that still has to prove itself. Signal is really good at doing what it does well and I’m grateful for that. Matrix is cool, but my family/friends will never use it (and element still sucked last I checked, especially to deal with encryption).
Signal is easy to use, extremely secure, and I can actually use it with less technical people I care about.
Like you said - these are major wins among an ocean of failure from technologists who have for years complained while failing to ship a solution with the right tradeoffs (normal) people would actually use.
I don’t find his other arguments very convincing either.
I'm not so sure about that. I feel like Matrix has pretty much solved the problems with federation, E2EE, and multi-device usage. I typically have Matrix clients running on three devices, talking to my self-hosted homeserver, with encrypted chats with people on different homeservers, and it's been... at least a year?... since I had any issues with encrypted messages.
It's been really good at disproving Moxie's assertion that you have to have centralization to evolve a protocol, too. The introduction of Spaces (like Discord servers) was really smooth and backward-compatible.
There are features it lacks that I miss (stickers, sending multiple images in one message), but they're not essential.
I do still also use Signal with less technical people, and I think Signal has been very successful at making adoption very easy, but with serious trade-offs for anyone not on the happy path (changing devices is a nightmare, it's too easy to lose chat history, multi-device is a trainwreck).
Not really. It has the same weakness that other E2EE schemes have when it comes to general usability. In a usability study involving Signal[1], 21 out of 28 computer science students failed to establish and maintain a secure end to end encrypted connection.
The usability issue is a huge ongoing problem but there is a tendency to want to talk about everything but usability. We are having an animated discussion about the paint scheme while the barn is on fire.
[1] https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/09... | When SIGNAL hits the Fan: On the Usability and Security of State-of-the-Art Secure Mobile Messaging
> If they didn't care about the content of your message
I'm not saying they don't care, just that e2ee in a centralised platform whose business is data collecting does not accomplish as much as one can think.
> why would they ask signal to help them add ee2e in the first place.
"Marketing" is why.
That's actually harder than you may think in more and more countries. Even with VoIP it's hard to not associate your banking details with your phone number. It won't be long until anonymous phone numbers will disappear again.
WhatsApp brought encryption to the masses. Sure, they did so using Signal's code, but they could've picked any code base for E2EE. Even XMPP has secure encryption.
Signal is "that alternate WhatsApp some people use".
I think it's good to take a look at Signal, recognize that it's better than what came before, and still come to the conclusion that it could be better. Signal is far from perfect despite its achievements, and today, years down the line from its original success, there is much room for improvement (or, barring that, replacement).
Always this endless either you with us or against us shit . smh.
and people who need E2E and are sufficiently knowledgeable about it don't use it either, for a number of reasons
it's a for-profit, centralized, closed-source product for privacy larpers
That is no small thing. Bitch all you want but make sure when you do you compare it to the success of literally ever other attempt to bring e2e to the masses and then if I'm gonna be snarky maybe compare it to your own achievements.
It would have been fantastic if signal also achieved other things on top of what they did. Maybe. Knocking what they did? Forget it. Signal is an outstanding achievement and nothing else comes close. I will cheer you so, so hard if you beat it.