I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.
Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?
as I see it, Signal tried to fit that privacy gap for a standard centralised messenger, if you think about it, that might have made it easier to non-tech-savvy people to adopt it (even if it was as a request from a contact), decentralisation is not remotely appealing to them
ignore the comment saying signal is “end to end encrypted” “private” etc
You should have visited Signal’s github page first, I dunno. Before talking. Made up a lot of stuff.
They do have proprietary code for that crypto wallet they have there, well hidden, and for, eh, phone number registration, but other than that module it’s all released, I think.
The server and the client applications are FOSS. You can host it for yourself, patching out the domain names and registration parts the way you like it more.
That’s not the full picture. That’s exactly the problem I was highlighting. The issue isn’t whether some of the code is “FOSS”, it’s about whether all of it is. If even small parts remain proprietary (as you mentioned), then we can’t verify what those parts are doing. And those parts could theoretically significantly affect the data collection. Also, I didn’t make up a lot of stuff. The Signal Foundation themselves have confirmed that certain UI and build components are not fully libre. As the GNU project puts it, if part of your system is closed, then you’re trusting a black box, no matter how well-lit the rest of it is.
Signal protocol guarantees that what’s on the server we can discard in your suspicions, it doesn’t matter, because you are not trusting it.
The client is fully open.
You are trusting the server, or do you verify the fingerprint of EVERY contact of yours? The normal people don’t, as Signals UI purpusfully doesn’t encourages it.
If it’s not fully free, I don’t trust it. I don’t understand how someone in a privacy community doesn’t understand how much a few lines of code can track someone so easily no matter how much of the program is free software.
I didn’t actually know the server code was published. It’d be cool if the client allowed multiple servers so you could talk to people on the “normal” master while also thing a private instance
I think choosing a server, like in some ICQ clients, is not a complex modification.
They had it implemented but discarded it out of stupid centralization ideology. Moxie said it on a Chaos communication Congress presentation he held but which he didn’t wanted to be recorded, as the stuff he said was stupid and wrong.
You can easily verify the keys of the person you’re speaking with, and they’re generated locally… so technically speaking, even if their servers are leaking, your messages are still unreadable, but yea that’s not ideal
Not when it’s backdoored. So, tell the guy above there’s a fully libre copy.
? Even if the servers are backdoored, your messages are still encrypted by your key - as long as the server didn’t manipulate the keys at the first exchange, which you can check by verifying the security code
If it matches, then it’s okay. Such features exist in all encrypted messenger apps
The app, not the server.
Jami, as much as I prefer it on various philosophical grounds, simply doesn’t work very well at the moment. :(
And we should report problems and fix them ourselves to make it better
Yeah I’m on their Discourse forum, but the situation isn’t that great, and it’s unclear to me if the problems are fixable. Particularly when there are incompatibilities between version X and version Y, where both versions are already in the wild. You can’t travel backwards in time to fix those versions, and this (like email clients or telephones) is an application area where you can’t tell people to update their clients all the time. You have to keep things interoperable.
It’s also often inconvenient to reproduce bugs like that in order to diagnose them. If you try to talk to someone over Jami and it doesn’t work, you generally can’t borrow their phone to analyze the issue. If you’re one of the core developers, maybe you have access to a room full of different kinds of phones and OS versions to test with, but a typical user/contributor won’t have anything like that.
Yeah, this is just the reality of unpaid free software developers, they don’t have the recourses to work on every single bug as quick as a paid developer, but that doesn’t justify not reporting bugs and working with the developers to fix them. Like you said, Jami is grest ethically so why not make it great function? Also, don’t you have a computer and a phone? Test on those. I don’t own a phone, so I can’t test the phone, but I do gladly test on my laptop.
Based
Molly.im is a Signal Client fork with Security enhancements and the possibility to install a version with only free software.
Great, but it relies on signal’s servers, so it’s centralised. Also, Moly merely removes proprietary parts from Signal, but that’s a workaround (same thing for linux-libre kernel, it’s free software, but just a workaround which is why I’m looking to help with HyprbolaBSD). I’m not coming here to say Molly isn’t an improvement, but being centralised and relying on a non-tully-free program’s servers is a huge red flag for me :)
It doesn’t matter whether a server claims to run free software or not. You can’t verify what it’s running. That’s why E2EE is designed entirely around the client. You can’t trust the server no matter what.
Did anyone say that was the problem? It will not matter how encrypted your messages are when the centralised service gets easily banned.
Yeah the comment I responded to did
Directly above, doesn’t look like it.
(you will still need a phone number to sign up for Signal)
Spam prevention
It’s not an argument. Think about regular mobile numbers, are they preventing spams? No.
What kind of spam are you talking about
Scams, girls wanting to chat with you, incredible money opportunities…
Are you seeing spam on signal? Do you even know why spam is possible on phone networks and what the difference is between phone networks and the internet?
The point, I believe, wasn’t about spam but likely got derailed. It was probably about the phone number requirement being unnecessary. I’ll just add that even if it is, it’s a measure geared towards common users that often need to recover access to their accounts through means they’re already familiar with, as is a verification SMS. It’s not the safest nor the most private, but it’s easier to deal with for most people. Whoever wants something that doesn’t depend on a SIM or eSIM should try Briar and SimpleX. None of these will be a perfect solution for every single person though.
I don’t know what is spam for you, but when you get three message requests from three girls respectively named Tania, Clara and Ella that are contacting you about you carrier or your management skills, I call it spam.
The way that Signal integrates phone number is odd because it opens up the spam door. O understand why Signal use phone numbers this way (to make “normies” adopt Signal more easily like WhatsApp would do) but it not the best to kind of contaminate the network with the traditional cell network
Because Signal has a low user base. Why Spam on Signal, if you can reach everyone with an SMS?
And discovery.
One of the design goals is that they don’t have a user database, so governments etc can’t knock down their door demanding anything. By using phone numbers your “contacts” are not on their servers but local on your phone.
That’s WRONG they have a Database of every Phone number registered to them and metadata like the last time they logged in. You send all your contacts numbers to signal so they can respond who is also using Signal.
During registration they want a phone number to send a verification code. I know I am me. They don’t need to verify that.
They do. Otherwise anyone can register with your phone number and start messaging as if they were you.
If you want more privacy you’d need something like Simplex.
Signal’s internal identifiers are, of course, not phone numbers. And you can download their server and host it without requiring phone numbers for registration. Just they simply can’t afford it, they need to prevent bots from registering and sending messages somehow. A group message is stored in Signal as many times as there are group members, for example.
They need to verify using a phone number because otherwise other people could sign up using your phone number and pretend to be you? What?
They can only sign up using your phone number if they do require a phone number. If they didn’t ask for a phone number then how would people sign up using your phone number?
… but why require numbers in the first place.
But your phone number is, and thus every agency can get your full name and address and location.
Yes but only yours. That’s still better and only having to knock on one door to get everything.
If I’m the target, then this is enough.
You are not the only person using Signal.
and then every phone number on your phone.
This sounds like it’s a problem no matter what method of communication you use, unless you keep no address book and memorize everything.
Nope
Privacy is not necessarily anonymity. Signal uses a phone number to prevent spam and DDOS attacks on their network. Session doesn’t do this and got wrecked by DDOS attacks to the point where most of the major groups are pretty much dead.
Use Signal to talk to people you know. That’s what it’s for. You don’t use it for anonymous chats.
Privacy ≠ anonymity
Our numbers are not private from Signal. Do not let this derail us. Escaping to libre software is the best return on investment.
It’s libre software. Go host the server and change the clients to connect to your custom server and distribute to the users you need.
how many communities are doing that right now? i suspect you may be drastically understating the barriers to do that. but would be delighted to be proven wrong…
The barrier is that only you and your friends would be using that Fignal or Xignal or whatever home installation, and for that practically, for ease of use, it’s simpler to host Matrix which even a complete idiot can do.
You could change it to use multiple servers but changing app is faster.
So, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is the most important part.
How? i wanted to do that but the client doesn’t let you use another server? Host file ?
Agreed, escaping WhatsApp and Discord is the most important part.
Are you saying I have to literally rebuild and distribute my own client APK if I want to use my own server? There’s no “settings” in the existing client where you say what server you want to use, like every email client has? That sounds obnoxious.
If you don’t trust Signal to run an unmodified server without malicious modifications, then why would you trust their build of the APK?
To truly be safe from Signal’s influence you would need to audit the source code and build it yourself.
Personally I have no problem using Signal’s servers
To truly be safe from Signal’s influence you would need to audit the source code and build it yourself.
Usually I only install APK’s from F-Droid, which always builds its apps from source, rather than using the developer’s APK. I’m uncomfortable that Signal doesn’t seem to be on F-droid, and I’m in fact hesitant to install it from anywhere else. I’m not currently set up to build Android apps myself. I’m a fairly unsophisticated Android user.
I just checked and I installed Signal from F-Droid.
It says Repository: Guardian Project on the app page.
Interesting, I wonder why it’s not in the main F-droid repo. Thanks.
You can use Obtainium and get it straight from Github.
Signal on Android has had reproducible builds for years now.
Sources: Github Readme, Official blog post
Thanks. I’m not a sophisticated Android user and so far have just stayed with installing stuff from F-droid. If the official build matches the F-droid build, that’s great. At some point I want to spend some time bringing up Android build tools, but I have too much other stuff going on right now.
Reduce spam bot accounts and other malware, as well as to allow for user discovery so you can find your contacts more easily. It’s not designed to be an anonymous service, just a private one.
It’s not designed to be an anonymous service, just a private one.
I think this needs to be said a lot more often and a lot louder. Anonymous and private are NOT necessarily the same thing, nor should the expectation be that they are. Both have a purpose.
Is there a quick explanation of what signal actually does? I don’t understand the need for a phone number either. Jami doesn’t ask for a phone number. It has other deficiencies that make me not want to use it, but those are technical rather than policy, more or less. Similarly, irc (I’m luddite enough to still be using it) doesn’t ask for a phone number either. So this is all suspicious. There are a bunch of other things like this too (Element, Matrix, etc.) that I haven’t looked into and tbh I don’t understand why they exist.
Signal is a messenger service. You can expire messages after a certain amount of time.
They ask for a phone number to limit bots. I used my Google voice number and it worked fine. I like Telegram which banned me after a day of use for using Google Voice.
I get that Signal is a messaging system (not sure if “messenger service” has a specific meaning). What I don’t understand is why I’d want to use it instead of any of the million others that are out there. I’ve never used Signal and don’t have the slightest clue about how it operates, but apparently it tries to mess with the contact list on your phone? That sounds bad. I use Nextcloud Chat sometimes and its web design is ugly, but it works ok and you can self-host it fairly easily. It doesn’t do anything with your phone contacts. Jami is distributed but (maybe unrelated) I often have trouble getting it to work at all.
It doesn’t “mess with your contacts”. You can choose to give contacts access if you wish to have secure contact discovery. Contacts are not uploaded.
It’s robustly encrypted and quantum secure, without metadata leaks like the sender of a message.
It’s recommended by Edward Snowden.
If you want to message someone, have the ability to verify there is no man in the middle attack, have perfect forward secrecy, very strong crypto, use open source software and still have all the conveniences of a modern message app, use signal.
Do you mean the client side is open source? What about the server? If you’re required to use Signal’s server, how do you know it’s not disclosing metadata? If you can self-host it, why the phone number?
The idea is you don’t need to trust the server
Messages sent don’t contain a readable sender field
Mobile numbers may not be necessary long term, architecture depends on accounts being created Witt phone numbers. Usernames were very recently introduced. Soon we may see requirement for phone number dropped, unless related to spam control
The wikipedia article looks informative and I will read through it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)
Is spam a serious problem on other messaging systems?
You trust the server if you don’t verify fingerprints. Signal makes that too difficult.
Sealed sender is a theater that you can enable but still have to trust Intel, aws and the signal server.
CONTACTS ARE UPLOADED
Robust encryption isn’t useful if you don’t verify the fingerprint and signal makes that not intuitively.
SIGNAL CLIENT HAS UNFREE SOFTWARE INCLUDED
Contacts are never uploaded
Hashes of some numbers are if you enable contact discovery
Verifying keys is easy, what are you talking about?
It’s not suspicious. It’s been talked about for years. People know exactly what the phone number is used for. Easy discoverability, quick and seamless onboarding of new users by providing a way to bootstrap their social graph, and it being very similar to the process of the other biggest player that people just understand. And spam prevention. The phones are not leaked or used for anything else. The other alternatives exist and you are welcome to onboard the people you want onto them if you think it’s simpler.
The code is open, if you don’t trust other people and can’t read the code to understand then hire someone you trust to validate the claims and assure you. But spreading FUD and saying it’s suspicious is not productive to anyone.
-
I don’t understand what you mean about discoverability: is my presence on the network advertised to strangers and spammers? That doesn’t sound good. What does the onboarding process look like?
-
You still haven’t said what Signal’s advantages are supposed to be over alternatives, though I can guess some (e.g. better/more crypto than irc has). Jami seems conceptually ok, but buggy in implementation. Nextcloud Talk works but is kind of clunky. Matrix is popular though I’ve never used it: is it the main alternative to Signal these days? I thought it was what all the hipsters had migrated to while luddites like me were still on irc. Jitsi Meet looks nice though again I haven’t explored it much. I’ve been puzzled for a long time that there is so much work in this area yet everything has deficiencies. Are there difficult problems to solve?
-
If Signal’s code is open then of course I’d want to self-host the server. Can I do that? Does that get in the way of the onboarding process you mention? Where does the phone number come in, in that case? If I to use Signal’s server, that doesn’t sound so open, and normally there’s no way for me to verify that it’s running the same code that they claim.
I don’t see where I’m spreading FUD. Ignoring a question and calling it FUD doesn’t invalidate the question.
You can’t easily selfhost Signal. They engineered it purposefully to only run on Big Tech Clouds with specific Intel CPUs they put (too much) trust in.
Very interesting, thanks. Do you mean they use SGX (Intel’s buggy secure enclave feature)? Any idea what they use it for? If not SGX, do you know what the issue is? AMD Epyc processors have something similar but different, fwiw. If there is such highly secret info on the server though, that makes self-hosting even more important. It also makes the architecture suspect.
Yes SGX, they use it for sealed Sender, contact discovery and mobilecoin.
- Yes, kinda, if they have you in their contact books, they get a notification you joined.
- You can easily migrate everyone from WhatsApp to Signal and they don’t have to exchange usernames as most people have the phonenumbers in their contacts. (This has massive drawbacks addressed somewhere else, one lesser known fact is that they would have to verify fingerprints anyway to be sure they are speaking to the right person an not a proxy. Instead of that they could also exchange username+fingerprint initially, like Simplex does it.)
-
I assume ease of use and spam prevention.
I think Signal tries to be at least somewhat attractive to the average person who wants more privacy than just using WhatsApp or whatever. Making it easy to message existing contacts helps a lot with adoption.
The amount of trolls in this thread that either try to spew false information intentionally or just have idea what they are talking about is insane.
If you are worried about what data (including your phone number) law enforcement can recieve (if they have your specific user ID, which is not equal to your phone number) from the Signal company check this: https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=21114562 Tldr: It’s the date of registration and last time user was seen online. No other information, Signal just doesn’t have any other and this is by design.
If you want to know more about how they accomplish that feat you can check out the sealed sender feature: https://nerdschalk.com/what-is-sealed-sender-in-signal-and-should-you-enable-it/
or the private contact discovery system: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
Also as Signal only requires a valid phone number for registration you might try some of these methods (not sure if they still work): https://theintercept.com/2024/07/16/signal-app-privacy-phone-number/
This shows they do not need our phone numbers but they still demand it.
However, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
No it doesn’t. What is a need? It is for troll and spam and bot protection. How does the links show that there is no need for it?
Downvoted as you let them bait you. Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
Downvoted as you let them bait you. Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
I don’t know what you mean by “bait” here, but…
Escaping to a phone-number-requiring, centralized-on-Amazon, closed-source-server-having, marketed-to-activists, built-with-funding-from-Radio-Free-Asia (for the specific purpose of being used by people opposing governments which the US considers adversaries) service which makes downright dishonest claims of having a cryptographically-ensured inability to collect metadata? No thanks.
(fuck whatsapp and discord too, of course.)
When it’s libre software, we’re not banned from fixing it.
SimpleX is better
Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is most important part.
When it’s libre software, we’re not banned from fixing it.
Signal is a company and a network service and a protocol and some libre software.
Anyone can modify the client software (though you can’t actually distribute modified versions via Apple’s iOS App Store, due to Apple’s binary distribution system being incompatible with GPLv3… which is why unlike the Android version there are no forks of Signal for iOS) but if a 3rd party actually “fixed” the problems I’ve been talking about here then it really wouldn’t make any sense to call that Signal anymore because it would be a different (and incompatible) protocol.
Signal (the company) must approve of and participate in any change to Signal (the protocol and service).
Yeah, iOS is not libre software.
it’s being answered in the github thread you linked. Sorry that this is not enough for you but it’s enough for most people: “For people who are concerned about this sort of thing, you can enable sealed sender indicators in the settings”
it’s being answered in the github thread you linked
The answers there are only about the fact that it can be turned off and that by default clients will silently fall back to “unsealed sender”.
That does not say anything about the question of what attacks it is actually meant to prevent (assuming a user does “enable sealed sender indicators”).
This can be separated into two different questions:
- For an adversary who does not control the server, does sealed sender prevent any attacks? (which?)
- For an adversary who does control the server, how does sealed sender prevent that adversary from identifying the sender (via the fact that they must identify themselves to receive messages, and do so from the same IP address)?
The strongest possibly-true statement i can imagine about sealed sender’s utility is something like this:
For users who enable sealed sender indicators AND who are connecting to the internet from the same IP address as some other Signal users, from the perspective of an an adversary who controls the server, sealed sender increases the size of the set of possible senders for a given message from one to the number of other Signal users who were online from behind the same NAT gateway at the time the message was sent.
This is a vastly weaker claim than saying that “by design” Signal has no possibility of collecting any information at all besides the famous “date of registration and last time user was seen online” which Signal proponents often tout.
It’s private but it’s not anonymous. they know who is talking to who, but not what they are talking about.
To prevent spam and to allow people who already know each other’s number to easily contact over signal. If you want an anonymous account use an online sms activation service paid with monero, personally I recommend smspool.net .
Because they’re lying. Corporations, governments, and just people in general tend to do that, ya’know.
Session is what you want. But you have to directly shares each others public keys to connect
