Users of the Signal messaging app got hit by a hacker attack. We analyze what happened and why the attack demonstrates that Signal is reliable.
My Dog, “hackers hacking a hack”.
Can we please stop using the word “hacker” when we mean “cybercriminals”, “attackers”, “malicious agents”? We have plenty better terms. Like… “cybercriminals”, “attackers”, “malicious agents”: https://rys.io/en/155.html
I mean, I get the need for clickbaity titles and all, but surely we can do better.
First, I did not make the title, I just linked an article.
Second, I get that you wish people did not use the word “hacker” the way they do, but… isn’t it how natural languages work? Words mean what people them for. I wish “crypto” did not mean “cryptocurrencies”, butibn many contexts it does. That’s life.
Talking about clickbaits, what about linking to your blog everywhere you can? It’s completely off topic (the link is about Signal, your blog is about how people misuse a word according to you), but nobody complains, because apparently you thought it was relevant, just like the author thought that calling them “hackers” was fine.
First, I did not make the title, I just linked an article.
Great. No need to take stuff personally. But since you did: one thing you could have done is to replace “hackers” with “[malicious actors]” (yes, in square brackets, to signify modification).
Second, I get that you wish people did not use the word “hacker” the way they do, but… isn’t it how natural languages work? Words mean what people them for. I wish “crypto” did not mean “cryptocurrencies”, butibn many contexts it does. That’s life.
I linked to the specific entry on my blog, because I expected that exact type of response. I give pretty specific arguments why I find the abuse of the word “hacker” problematic. And not just from the perspective of hackers (i.e. tinkerers, techies, etc) themselves, but also from the broader perspective of being able to have informed public debate about information security.
You are using the same argument that has been used against Black activists trying to reclaim the N-word, and against LGBTQ+ activists who tried to reclaim the F-word. And you know what? They both succeeded.
So there’s that.
So you’re saying that a “black hat hacker” cannot exist, because by definition a hacker is not a malicious actor. So everyone who is using the word “blackhat” is disrespectful towards those who identify as “hackers”, as much as using the N-word or F-word is disrespectful towards the respective communities. Am I getting that right?
So you’re saying that a “black hat hacker” cannot exist, because by definition a hacker is not a malicious actor.
I never said that. I said:
Can we please stop using the word “hacker” when we mean “cybercriminals”, “attackers”, “malicious agents”?
Many of these cybercriminals, attackers, and malicious agents are, in fact, hackers. They are also techies. Would it make sense to say “Signal got hit by a techies’ attack”? No, obviously not — one chooses the most specific term that fits in the context. But “hacker” is not that in this particular case.
If a bank is robbed and it just so happens that every single member of the robbers’ team happens to be a driver, would you write “Bank robbed by drivers”? Or, to be even closer to the absurdity in that article, “Bank driven by drivers”? No, that would be silly. You would write instead: “Bank robbed by robbers”.
So instead of writing “Signal hacked by hackers” it really makes way more sense (and happens to also be more informative) to write “Signal attacked by state-sponsored attackers”, or whatever the specific case might be.
So everyone who is using the word “blackhat” is disrespectful towards those who identify as “hackers”, as much as using the N-word or F-word is disrespectful towards the respective communities.
No, but I would agree that people who knowingly misuse the word “hacker” when they mean “attacker”, etc., are disrespectful to the amazing, creative, inventive and inspiring people who often identify themselves as “hackers”. Come to a hacker con or camp one day and maybe you’ll get it.
I getting that right?
No, you are clearly arguing in bad faith, trying to put in my mouth something I did not say. And you know it very well.
So instead of writing “Signal hacked by hackers”
Pretty sure it was “Signal attacked by hackers”, but I get your point about “Signal hacked by hackers”, though I don’t think this would be worth an entire blog post :-).
trying to put in my mouth something I did not say.
On the contrary, I am trying to reformulate what I understood, so that you can confirm (or not) that I got your point. Don’t assume that people who disagree with you are in bad faith, and you’ll generally have a better experience communicating.
Anyway, that’s not constructive, let’s stop here.
so… a bunch of twilio employees had (and still have) exactly the capability that the attackers gained with this phishing attack. As do employees of Signal, Amazon, and various telecom companies, not to mention governments.
“Secure messenger” and “requires a telephone number” are not compatible concepts.
“Secure messenger” and “requires a telephone number” are not compatible concepts.
Following that logic, could we say that “secure messenger” and “requires a computer” are not compatible concepts, because the computer could be compromised? I mean, in the Twilio situation above, users got informed that the conversation key had changed (suggesting that they should verify the keys again if it matters to them). Now if your phone is compromised, you’re screwed, whether or not your secure messenger requires a telephone number.
Why change the title? This is extremely misleading. The article states " We analyze what happened and why the attack demonstrates that Signal is reliable."
Extremely confusing how? I copied the first sentence in the “title” box, then the first two sentences in the “description” box, and the article again starts with those two…
Also the attack demonstrates that they could not do much, but still they got access to some accounts, which I believe qualifies for “some people where victim of an attack”. Or does it need to end badly for the title to be allowed to say that there was an attack?
EDIT: sorry, I actually had missed the title and copied the first sentence. Fixed!
Sponsored by …?
Signal is pretty awesome! Best general messenger for non-techies as well!
One may have all the encryption you want, but if the 2FA SMS whispers entry to the hackers, it’s clear that they’re not coming in through the security door but through the broken window…
To be fair, even though they bypassed the 2FA, they did not get access to previous conversations and contact list. That’s the point of the article, right?
Even if the encryption does not collapse, it is still an app full of identifiers. That makes metadata available. An attacker could figure out who contacted whom.
Whenever someone says “Signal is not good enough”, my answer is “what’s your threat model”? For me it’s a pretty damn good compromise given that all my friends and family are on it (as opposed to e.g. using WhatsApp or Telegram 99% of the time and a perfect alternative with one contact). The day I can realistically think about making my contacts move to a better alternative, I’ll do it. In the meantime, that’s the best I’ve got. And it’s not too bad, to be fair.
Uh, I forgot to tell you that the “account” is safely saved locally (something) like jones.zip. That’s it!
In the meantime, that’s the best I’ve got. And it’s not too bad, to be fair.
Are you quite certain? Have you looked hard and concluded that Signal is the best alternative available today?
I can tell you that my messenger doesn’t use identifiers, it doesn’t track me, it doesn’t care who my contacts are, it doesn’t ask for my email, phone number, and importantly it does everything Signal does.
Yes, I have been following Signal and alternatives since… well since TextSecure was only for SMS. And I find that many times people critical about Signal don’t really know much about it except for the fact that it uses the phone number (not the email).
Again, not saying it’s perfect. Just that for my threat model (which arguably is a valid threat model for billions of people), it’s a very good solution.
You cannot know what kind of government we will have in ten years, nor is it said that your good behavior will be enough to keep you out of trouble. Millions of Jews had done nothing wrong, yet they were persecuted. Moreover, the fact that you have nothing to hide does not fully express what you could do if you had instead: sort of like giving up your right to speak because you have nothing to say.
This seems completely off-topic to me. I never said I have nothing to hide. The Signal client app (i.e. the part that you can audit, compile and run, not the server) provides a lot of privacy already: e2e encryption via the excellent Signal protocol, private profile, private groups, sealed sender. So in terms of metadata, the Signal server never knows what you write, who is in which group, and to whom you are writing. Again, from the client code that you can audit yourself before you run it.
On top of that, leveraging the secure enclaves, the Signal server (tries to) guarantee(s) the private contact discovery (based on the hashes of your contact list). Which means that if you trust the SGX enclave, all that the Signal server knows is your phone number. If you don’t trust the enclave, then you can assume that the server got access to your contacts when you did the discovery (i.e. when you installed the app).
That’s very, very, very far from saying I have nothing to hide.
What’s your messenger then?
It is the sole messenger that doesn’t use identificators. You cannot get wrong.
No identificators at all? Lol sure, who else is using it with you?