this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
22 points (77.5% liked)

Privacy

37671 readers
582 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
22
TM Signal (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

The scariest part of this recent news is that TM Signal seem(ed) to be interoperable. People using TM Signal could interact with actual Signal users. How are you to know whether or not your groups have people using bastardized versions of Signal? Are things like Session interoperable with Signal?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

In no way does Signal prevent conversations from being archived. For all you know, a recipient could be screenshotting all of your messages, and they could even be using the official app when doing so.

If you don't trust your contacts, probably shouldn't be messaging them anything sensitive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes of course. Signal can archive messages and they can be restored, you can screenshot messages and you can have them backed up as part of a policy like icloud backups.

My question is more about how do you know you're interacting with an authentic signal client, and not a bastardized one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

how do you know you’re interacting with an authentic signal client, and not a bastardized one.

I don't think that's the point... it does not matter. Even if it's an authentic client, if the device (e.g. 0 day vulnerability on the OS) or the user (e.g. does not lock their phone while going to the bathroom) is compromised, your conversation is not secure.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

At the moment you can't. The only realistic way I could see that happening is if the servers would check the app's digital signature and refuse the app from communicating with the official infrastructure if it didn't match.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which would be absolutely disgusting given that Signal's official app lacks some basic functionality!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I use the molly fork because there's features I like about it. I'd be sad if I couldn't use it anymore. :(

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

What are the ones you're after specifically?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even then, nothing stops the client from lying to the server.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's the point of digitally signing the app, to ensure its authenticity and integrity. TM and others wouldn't be able to resign the modified app with the Signal Foundation signature.

EDIT: Yeah after thinking more about it it's not a trivial problem, as you need to assume that the endpoint is inherently untrusted.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's actually possible in a way:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafetyNet

But you necessarily need to limit the devices and operating systems that are allowed. No custom ROMs, no root access, etc.

It's bullshit and breaks open computing as a concept.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Isn't that just delegating trust to a third party, e.g. here Google? It's not as if Google was somehow immune to 0 days.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

Fuck Safetynet and Play Integrity.