• That’s outdated information:

      Go forth and contribute, fork, or create your own.

      They also refuse to distance themselves from Google’s app store.

      This link has existed forever at this point if we count in internet years: https://signal.org/android/apk/ - getting an app directly from the developer with no middleman is about as distant as you can get from Google’s app store.

      •  doctortran   ( @doctortran@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Having third party clients is not good for security.

        If the first party provider told you this, you should always second guess them.

        Moreover, providing an option that informed users can choose doesn’t hurt security. This idea the user can’t be trusted to use the appropriate type of messaging if provided options needs to die.

        •  ramenu   ( @ramenu@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1822 days ago

          When you use a client, you are relying on the client’s crypto implementation to be correct. This is only one part of it and there’s a lot more to it when it comes to hardening the program. Signal focuses on their desktop and mobile clients and they hire actual security professionals and cryptographers (unlike the charlatans in this thread) to implement it correctly.

          Having third party clients would not definitively mean the client is bad, but it most likely would break the security model. Just take a look at Matrix’s clients.

          • When you use a client, you are relying on the client’s crypto implementation to be correct.

            Nothing prevents this other client from using the same as the original app. When the alt client is just a fork, it’s even easier to check if they kept it intact or not.

            This is only one part of it and there’s a lot more to it when it comes to hardening the program.

            Something at which even the original Signal fails. It has received criticism multiple times (1, 2) for not being verifiable whether it’s been tampered with by the app’s distributor, and also for having included properietary google services dependencies which dynamically load further code from the phone which is also a security issue. Worthy forks solve both of these.

            Signal focuses on their desktop and mobile clients and they hire actual security professionals and cryptographers (unlike the charlatans in this thread) to implement it correctly.

            Last I heard (a month or so ago) the desktop client had serious unfixed issues.


            I think it further erodes your point that Signal is not just hostile in terms of not wanting it, but Moxie for instance has been very, very verbal about this.

            •  ramenu   ( @ramenu@lemmy.ml ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 days ago

              Something at which even the original Signal fails. It has received criticism multiple times (1, 2) for not being verifiable whether it’s been tampered with by the app’s distributor, and also for having included properietary google services dependencies which dynamically load further code from the phone which is also a security issue. Worthy forks solve both of these.

              That’s unfortunate. I do hope that these forks don’t go and start making extensive changes though, because that’s where it becomes a problem.

          •  poVoq   ( @poVoq@slrpnk.net ) 
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            No, if your system can’t support 3rd party clients properly, it is inherently insecure, especially in an e2ee context where you supposedly don’t have to trust the server/vendor. If a system claims to be e2ee, but tightly controls both clients and servers (for example WhatsApp), that means they can rug-pull that e2ee at any point in time and even selectively target people with custom updates to break that e2ee for them only. The only way to realistically protect yourself from that is using a 3rd party client (and yes, I know, in case of Signal also theoretically reviewing every code change and using reproducible builds, but that’s not very realistic).

            Now admittedly, Signal has started to be less hostile to 3rd party clients like Molly, so it’s not as bad anymore as it used to be.

          • Excellent point! If I’m sending someone information that could get me killed if it were intercepted by the state, I’d sure as hell want some guarantees about how the other side is handling my data. Disallowing third party clients gives me at least one such guarantee.

            •  doctortran   ( @doctortran@lemm.ee ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              You have absolutely zero guarantees, with or without their policy on third party apps. You can not send sensitive information to someone else’s phone and tell yourself it couldn’t possibly have been intercepted, or that someone couldn’t get ahold of that phone, or that the person you’re sending it to won’t take a screenshot and save it to their cloud.

              A lot of software nowadays is doing a real disservice to their users by continuing to lie to them like this by selling them the notion that they can control their information after it has been sent. It’s really making people forget basic information hygiene. No app can guarantee that message won’t be intercepted or mishandled. They can only give you tools to hopefully prevent that, but there are no guarantees.

              Moreover, this policy does not exclude them from including third-party functionality and warning the user when they are communicating with somebody that isn’t using encryption.

              Too many of these apps and services are getting away with the “security” excuse for what is effectively just creating a walled garden to lock users in. Ask yourself how you can get your own data out of these services when you decide to quit them, and it becomes more apparent what they’re doing.

              • Of course, I fully agree! My point was just that you can eliminate the risk of poorly implemented cryptography at the endpoints. Obviously there’s a thousand and one other ways things could go wrong. But we do the best we can with security.

                Anyway apparently third party clients are allowed after all? So it’s a moot point.

              • You do if third party clients aren’t possible? You have control over what client the receiving end is using.

                But apparently third party clients are possible, so it’s moot.

            •  ramenu   ( @ramenu@lemmy.ml ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              121 days ago

              Again, having third party clients would not definitively mean the client is bad. Obviously, if it’s a simple fork with hopefully small patches that are just UI changes, it’s probably not going to harm the security model.

              I should have phrased this better in my original post. When I was thinking about third party clients, Matrix and XMPP immediately came to my mind. Not very simple forks. So I’ll phrase this better: “Having non-trivial third party clients is not good for security.” What non-trivial means is left to interpretation though, I suppose.

      •  jet   ( @jet@hackertalks.com ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1022 days ago

        They have demonstrated history of asking third party clients to not use the signal name, and not use the signal network. The client that currently exists that do this do it against the wishes of the signal foundation

        • They have demonstrated history of asking third party clients to not use the signal name, and not use the signal network.

          The lead developer, nearly 10 years ago now, specifically asked LibreSignal to stop. A single event does not make a demonstrated history.

          The client that currently exists that do this do it against the wishes of the signal foundation

          If you have evidence to back this claim, I would like to see it so I can stop spreading misinformation.

            • He was specifically talking to that developer. The “You” and “You’re” in that quote was specifically targeted at the LibreSignal developer.

              I recall the gurk-rs developer specifically mentioned that his client reports to Signal’s servers as a non-official app. The Signal admins can see the client name and version - just like websites can tell what browser you’re using - and could easily block third party clients if they wanted to but they don’t.

              If Signal wanted to block third party clients, they would have blocked them already.

  • This is a very rude question, but on this subject of being lean, I looked up your 990, and you pay yourself less than … well, you pay yourself half or a third as much as some of your engineers.

    Yes, and our goal is to pay people as close to Silicon Valley’s salaries as possible, so we can recruit very senior people, knowing that we don’t have equity to offer them. We pay engineers very well. [Leans in performatively toward the phone recording the interview.] If anyone’s looking for a job, we pay very, very well.

    But you pay yourself pretty modestly in the scheme of things.

    I make a very good salary that I’m very happy with.

    That’s pretty cool. But knowing the number would matter.

  • As a happy user of Signal (no bugs or incidents from my viewpoint), I regardless chime in to say a word for decentralization. :)

    Signal is centralized:

    • there is a single Signal implementation, with a single developing entity
    • you have to install its mobile version before you may run the desktop version

    There exist protocols like Tox which go a step beyond Signal and offer more freedom -> have multiple clients from diverse makers (some of them unstable), don’t have centralized registration, and don’t rely on servers to distribute messages - only to distribute contact information.

    In the grand comparison table of protocols (not clients), Tox is among the few lines that’s all green (Signal has one red square).

  • The thing I hate about signal is the UI. Everything looks way too big on my device. WhatsApp, for example, holds 2 more chats, and the messages themselves are tidier.

    This may seem like it’s not a big deal, but UI is absolutely crucial on order to get people to actually use the app. I moved a few people to signal but they just hated the way it looks. “seems like an app for old people, font too big”. I can see that. They moved back to insta/WhatsApp.

    I think some small and easy UI changes could make the app much better: just give us a “compact” mode.

    • Both WhatsApp and Signal show the same amount of chats to me (9 for both). WhatsApp does show a small sliver of a tenth chat, but it’s not really properly visible. There is a compact mode for the navigation bar in Signal, which helps a bit here.

      From what I can see there’s slightly more whitespace between chats, and Signal uses the full height for the chat (eg same size as the picture), whereas WhatsApp uses whitespace above and below, pushing the name and message preview together.

      In chats the sizes seem about the same to me, but Signal colouring messages might make it appear a bit more bloated perhaps? Not sure.