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?

  • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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.

    • root@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • utopiah@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day 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.

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        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.

          • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            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.

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                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…

              • utopiah@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day 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.

          • weedwolf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            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. :(

              • weedwolf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 hour ago

                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.