this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
32 points (82.0% liked)
Privacy
38139 readers
727 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Even then, nothing stops the client from lying to the server.
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.
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.
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.
Fuck Safetynet and Play Integrity.
Not to mention that a device that would pass Play Integrity is precisely the device I wouldn't ever consider doing anything private on. Which would defeat the whole point of Signal. It's already bad enough that it's so desktop-unfriendly while much fewer phones than computers that can run non-privacy-invasive OSes than computers...
Which would be absolutely disgusting given that Signal's official app lacks some basic functionality!
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. :(
What are the ones you're after specifically?
I'm not totally sure signal has it, but I like the ram shredding and socks proxy. I know molly isn't fit for everyone's threat model but those two features I do like to see so I use it instead; I've not run into any issues with it.
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.