News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal. Parent comment

Re:Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal by Beretta_Vexee on Wednesday February 19, 2025 @04:18AM (#43100216)
My grandmother lives 700 km from my home, I can't be there every time she changes her phone or breaks something.

I can instruct a non-technical relative to install Signal. Installing Conversations and configuring the right account on the right server is another story.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal by zaik on Wednesday February 19, 2025 @11:42PM (#43111217)
Maybe https://quicksy.im/ would work in that case. Easy to install like Signal, but it uses your phone number as a routable XMPP address. Unsophisticated users get easy onboarding and nobody else gets locked into some walled garden.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal by some_furry on Thursday February 20, 2025 @12:08PM (#43117278)
This isn't good enough.

Quicksy "advises you" to use OMEMO. It doesn't make OMEMO always-on.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal by zaik on Friday February 21, 2025 @02:48AM (#43125121)
It's encrypted by default. I agree that having no option to send unencrypted messages would increase security somewhat, but the unsophisticated user can always be tricked into sending an unencrypted message. They will just use a different app if something doesn't work. Not really fixable on the application level.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal by some_furry on Friday February 21, 2025 @06:16PM (#43134289)
Try sending me plaintext with Signal.

That's the fucking bar you need to meet.

[ Parent | on HN ]