this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
32 points (82.0% liked)

Privacy

39849 readers
1205 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
32
TM Signal (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by root@lemmy.world to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
 

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
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 51 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 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.

[–] root@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (12 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.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 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.

[–] jesse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[–] Corngood@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (3 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.

[–] ouch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Fuck Safetynet and Play Integrity.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months 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.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months 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...

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)