←back to thread

988 points keyboardJones | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
elvisloops ◴[] No.45170770[source]
I can't believe Signal is doing this.

Signal is known for its cutting-edge cryptographic protocol, but this feature has the effect of throwing that out the window and replacing it with a single static key. If a device with this enabled goes through the whole advanced protocol to receive a message (double ratcheting etc), then turns around and uploads it back to Signal’s servers with a static key, isn't that a roundabout way of replacing all of signal's protocol and its forward secrecy with a static key that has no forward secrecy?

They’re calling it "opt-in," but it doesn't look like that's actually true? You can’t know whether someone you’re talking to -- who may not understand the implications -- has enabled it. In group chats, it looks like a single person turning it on eliminates signal protocol for everyone in the chat.

Based on this post, the only way to actually opt out of this is to force disappearing messages to be enabled for a time under 24 hours for every chat, which is pretty frustrating.

Signal already lags other messengers in reliability, speed, and features. The reason people use it is for its uncompromising security. Shipping something that weakens that foundation undermines the reason people use Signal.

replies(6): >>45170803 #>>45170831 #>>45170946 #>>45172659 #>>45176363 #>>45176500 #
chimeracoder ◴[] No.45170803[source]
> They’re calling it "opt-in," but it doesn't look like that's actually true? You can’t know whether someone you’re talking to -- who may not understand the implications -- has enabled it. In group chats, it looks like a single person turning it on eliminates signal protocol for everyone in the chat.

People already can export backups of the messages they receive, in plain text, and publish those on the Internet if they way.

Signal's threat model has never included "you are directly messaging an adversarial party and expect to retain control over redistribution of those messages".

replies(2): >>45170914 #>>45171599 #
1. 3np ◴[] No.45171599[source]
> Signal's threat model has never included "you are directly messaging an adversarial party and expect to retain control over redistribution of those messages".

On the contrary.

https://signal.org/blog/signal-doesnt-recall/?pubDate=202508...

replies(2): >>45172392 #>>45172456 #
2. x0x0 ◴[] No.45172392[source]
Huh? That is very explicitly about preventing the migration of your signal messages into Windows Recall. Not the threat model you discuss.
3. chimeracoder ◴[] No.45172456[source]
> On the contrary

Well, no, that doesn't contradict what I said at all. That link isn't about treating the recipient of your messages as an adversarial actor. The recipient can still choose to enable it, if they want to provide Microsoft access to the messages they receive.