• mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are telling me this has been going on for almost a decade now, and no one ever noticed ?

    So we trust open source apps under the premise that if malicious code gets added to the code, at least one person will notice ? Here it shows that years pass before anyone notices and millions of people’s communications could have been compromised by the world’s most trusted messaging app.

    I don’t know which app to trust after this, if any?

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is this a shock? Someone would need to have already compromised your device. Even if it was encrypted with a password they still could install a key logger

      • mtchristo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is easier to compromise a device than to try and compromise encrypted communications.

    • Derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Matrix. You can host any version you want, and when you have to update, just do a version diff between you current and latest versions and check yourself.

  • sntx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have three things to say:

    1. Everyone, please make sure you’ve set up sound disk encryption
    2. That’s not a suprise (for me at least)
    3. It’s not much different on mobile (db is unecrypted) - check out molly (signal fork) if you want to encrypt it. However encrypted db means no messages until you decrypt it.
  • Brayd@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does anyone know how iMessage handles this on desktop (on Macs) as they (as far as I know) upgraded their encryption recently?

      • thayer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are too many differences for me to list here, but unlike mobile operating systems, Windows and most Linux desktops do not provide sandboxed environments for userspace apps by default. Apps generally have free reign over the whole system; reading/writing data from/to other apps without restriction or notification. There are virtually no safeguards against malicious actors.

        Mobile operating systems significantly restrict system-level storage space, making key areas read-only to prevent data access or manipulation. They also protect app storage, so one app can’t arbitrarily access or modify data stored for a different app.

        Mobile operating systems also follow an image-based update model, wherein updates are atomic. System software updates are generally applied successfully all at once or not at all, helping to ensure your phone is never left in a partial or unusable state after a system update.

        For desktop users, macOS, and atomic Linux distros combined with Flatpak are the closest comparisons.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bruh windows and linux have a secrets vault (cred manager and keyring respectively, iirc) for this exact purpose.

    Even Discord uses it on both OSs no problem

  • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, another prime example that demonstrates that Lemmy is no different than Reddit. Everyone thinks they are a professional online.

    Nothing sensitive should ever lack encryption especially in the hands of a third party company managing your data claiming you are safe and your privacy is protected.

    No one is invincible and it’s okay to criticize the apps we hold to high regards. If your are pissed people are shitting on Signal you should be pissed Signal gave people a reason to shit on them.

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is Signal almost universally defended whenever another security flaw is discovered? They’re not secure, they don’t address security issues, and their business model is unsustainable in the long term.

    But, but, if you have malware “you have bigger problems”. But, but, an attacker would have to have “physical access” to exploit this. Wow, such bullshit. Do some of you people really understand what you’re posting?

    But, but, “windows is compromised right out of the box”. Yes…and?

    But, but, “Signal doesn’t claim to be secure”. Fuck off, yes they do.

    But, but, “just use disk encryption”. Just…no…WTF?

    Anybody using Signal for secure messaging is misguided. Any on of your recipients could be using the desktop app and there’s no way to know unless they tell you. On top of that, all messages filter through Signal’s servers, adding a single-point-of-failure to everything. Take away the servers, no more Signal.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      98% of desktop apps (at least on Windows and Linux) are already broken by design anyways. Any one app can spy on and keylog all other apps, all your home folder data, everything. And anyone can write a desktop app, so only using solutions that (currently) don’t have a desktop app version, seems silly to me.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If someone can read my Signal keys on my desktop, they can also:

      • Replace my Signal app with a maliciously modified version
      • Install a program that sends the contents of my desktop notifications (likely including Signal messages) somewhere
      • Install a keylogger
      • Run a program that captures screenshots when certain conditions are met
      • [a long list of other malware things]

      Signal should change this because it would add a little friction to a certain type of attack, but a messaging app designed for ease of use and mainstream acceptance cannot provide a lot of protection against an attacker who has already gained the ability to run arbitrary code on your user account.

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not necessarily.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

        If you read anything, at least read this link to self correct.


        This is a common area where non-security professionals out themselves as not actually being such: The broken/fallacy reasoning about security risk management. Generally the same “Dismissive security by way of ignorance” premises.

        It’s fundamentally the same as “safety” (Think OSHA and CSB) The same thought processes, the same risk models, the same risk factors…etc

        And similarly the same negligence towards filling in holes in your “swiss cheese model”.

        “Oh that can’t happen because that would mean x,y,z would have to happen and those are even worse”

        “Oh that’s not possible because A happening means C would have to happen first, so we don’t need to consider this is a risk”

        …etc

        The same logic you’re using is the same logic that the industry has decades of evidence showing how wrong it is.

        Decades of evidence indicating that you are wrong, you know infinitely less than you think you do, and you most definitely are not capable of exhaustively enumerating all influencing factors. No one is. It’s beyond arrogant for anyone to think that they could 🤦🤦 🤦

        Thus, most risks are considered valid risks (this doesn’t necessarily mean they are all mitigatable though). Each risk is a hole in your model. And each hole is in itself at a unique risk of lining up with other holes, and developing into an actual safety or security incident.

        In this case

        • signal was alerted to this over 6 years ago
        • the framework they use for the desktop app already has built-in features for this problem.
          • this is a common problem with common solutions that are industry-wide.
        • someone has already made a pull request to enable the electron safe storage API. And signal has ignored it.

        Thus this is just straight up negligence on their part.

        There’s not really much in the way of good excuses here. We’re talking about a run of the mill problem that has baked in solutions in most major frameworks including the one signal uses.

        https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage

        • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was just nodding along, reading your post thinking, yup, agreed. Until I saw there was a PR to fix it that signal ignored, that seems odd and there must be some mitigating circumstances on why they haven’t merged it.

          Otherwise that’s just inexcusable.

      • gomp@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those are outside Signal’s scope and depend entirely on your OS and your (or your sysadmin’s) security practices (eg. I’m almost sure in linux you need extra privileges for those things on top of just read access to the user’s home directory).

        The point is, why didn’t the Signal devs code it the proper way and obtain the credentials every time (interactively from the user or automatically via the OS password manager) instead of just storing them in plain text?

          • gomp@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see the reasoning in your answer (I do see its passive-aggressiveness, but chose to ignore it).

            I asked “why?”; does your reply mean “because lack of manpower”, “because lack of skill” or something else entirely?

            In case you are new to the FOSS world, that being “open source” doesn’t mean that something cannot be criticized or that people without the skill (or time!) to submit PRs must shut the fu*k up.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’d need write access to the user’s home directory, but doing something with desktop notifications on modern Linux is as simple as

          dbus-monitor "interface='org.freedesktop.Notifications'" | grep --line-buffered "member=Notify\|string" | [insert command here]

          Replacing the Signal app for that user also doesn’t require elevated privileges unless the home directory is mounted noexec.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re arguing a red herring. They don’t understand security risk modeling, argument about signals scope let’s their broken premise dig deeper. It’s fundamentally flawed.

          It’s a risk and should be mitigated using common tools already provided by every major operating system (ie. Keychain).

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Highways shouldn’t have guard rails because if you hit one you’ve already gone off the road anyway.”

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But, but, “just use disk encryption”. Just…no…WTF?

      So not encrypting keys is bad, but actually encrypting them is bad too? Ok.

      Any on of your recipients could be using the desktop app and there’s no way to know unless they tell you.

      Another applefan? How it THIS supposed to be in scope of E2EE? Moreover, how having a way to know if recepient is using desktop app is not opposite of privacy?

      On top of that, all messages filter through Signal’s servers, adding a single-point-of-failure to everything. Take away the servers, no more Signal.

      Indeed. This is why I use Matrix. Also, fuck showing phone numbers to everyone(I heard they did something about it) and registration with phone numbers.

      • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any “secure” so that relies on someone else for security is not secure.

        Fuck the scope of E2EE. Signal makes a lot of claims on their website that are laughable. The desktop app is their main weakness. Attachments are stored unencrypted, keys in plaintext. If they were serious about security, they would depricate the windows app and block it from their servers.

        WTF does Apple have to do with anything?

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any “secure” so that relies on someone else for security is not secure.

          Fuck the scope of E2EE.

          When someone has FSB/NSA agent behind them reading messages, no amount of encryption will help. Biggest cybersecurity vulnreability is located between monitor and chair. When you are texting someone else, that someone else’s chair-monitor space is also vulnreable.

          Signal makes a lot of claims on their website that are laughable.

          Well, maybe. I didn’t read their claims, nor I use signal.

          Attachments are stored unencrypted, keys in plaintext.

          Is OS-level encryption plaintext or not? If yes, then they are encrypted, provided user enables such feature in OS. If not - nothing if encrypted fundamentally.

          If they were serious about security, they would depricate the windows app and block it from their servers.

          WTF does Apple have to do with anything?

          You just used applefans’ argument. Yeah, I wonder what.

    • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What app stops a pre install keylogger. I’m all for hearing criticism of Signal but it’s always about things they can’t control.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Basically for the same reason people often defend apple: the user interface is shiny, and they claim to be privacy oriented.

      Signal is a centralized US hosted service, that alone should be enough to disqualify it, outside of our many other criticisms.

  • Majestic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is just no excuse for not even salting or SOMETHING to keep the secrets out of plaintext. The reason you don’t store in plaintext is because it can lead to even incidental collection. Say you have some software, perhaps spyware, perhaps it’s made by a major corporation so doesn’t get called that and it crawls around and happens to upload a copy of a full or portion of the file containing this info, now it’s been uploaded and compromised potentially not even by a malicious actor successfully gaining access to a machine but by poor practices.

    No it can’t stop a sophisticated malware specifically targeting Signal to steal credentials and gain access but it does mean casual malware that hasn’t taken the time out to write a module to do that is out of luck and increases the burden on attackers. No it won’t stop the NSA but it’s still something that it stops someone’s 17 year old niece who knows a little bit about computers but is no malware author from gaining access to your signal messages and account because she could watch a youtube video and follow along with simple tools.

    The claims Signal is an op or the runner is under a national security letter order to compromise it look more and more plausible in light of weird bad basic practices like this and their general hostility. I’ll still use it and it’s far from the worst looking thing out there but there’s something unshakably weird about the lead dev, their behavior and practices that can’t be written off as being merely a bit quirky.

      • Majestic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean combined with any kind of function, even a trivial kind. A salt derived from some machine state data (a random install id generated on install, a hash of computer name, etc) plus a rot13 or something would still be better than leaving it plaintext.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        A different encrypted messaging service. Decent, but hasn’t taken off despite using email for accounts rather than phone bonkers numbers

        • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          All these apps are going to have to understand that they MUST be compatible between each other

          • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, not really.

            Which standard are they going to be forced to use? What infrastructure? What encryption? Are they going to be forced to develop apps for every platform?

            The best you can hope to expect is apps using the same standard being compatible. Xmpp, matrix, whisper, whatever. Even matrix bridges don’t really fix compatibility across standards very well.

            It’s nice to think that anyone anywhere, could expect to install any app and communicate with anyone else and maintain encryption as well as full privacy. But as far as anyone I’ve ever seen talk about it that’s actually trained in the technology behind it all, it isn’t possible unless there’s a single, enforced standard in use.

            Does it suck to have to deal with multiple apps? Hell yes. But I also don’t like the idea of being forced to use whatever compromise protocol would make it realistic. I’d rather have a dozen apps with no single gatekeeper between them.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mfw end to end can be compromised at the end.

      That said, they should fix this anyway

    • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Intrinsically/semantically no but the expectation is that the texts are encrypted at rest and the keys are password and/or tpm+biometric protected. That’s just how this works at this point. Also that’s the government standard for literally everything from handheld devices to satellites (yes, actually).

      At this point one of the most likely threat vectors is someone just taking your shit. Things like border crossings, rubber stamped search warrants, cops raid your house because your roommate pissed them off, protests, needing to go home from work near a protest, on and on.

      • redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        TPM isn’t all that reliable. You will have people upgrading their pc, or windows update updating their bios, or any number of other reasons reset their tpm keys, and currently nothing will happen. In effect people would see Signal completely break and loose all their data, often seemingly for no reason.

        Talking to windows or through it to the TPM also seems sketchy.

        In the current state of Windows, the sensible choice is to leave hardware-based encryption to the OS in the form of disk encryption, unfortunate as it is. The great number of people who loose data or have to recover their backup disk encryption key from their Microsoft account tells how easily that system is disturbed (And that Microsoft has the decryption keys for your encrypted date).

      • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If your device is turned on and you are logged in, your data is no longer at rest.

        Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.

        If your device’s storage is not encrypted, and you don’t have any type of verified boot process, then thats on you, not Signal.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.

          True.

          and you don’t have any type of verified boot process

          How motherboard refusing to boot from another drive would protect anything?

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not how this works.

          If the stored data from signal is encrypted and the keys are not protected than that is the security risk that can be mitigated using common tools that every operating system provides.

          You’re defending signal from a point of ignorance. This is a textbook risk just waiting for a series of latent failures to allow leaks or access to your “private” messages.

          There are many ways attackers can dump files without actually having privileged access to write to or read from memory. However, that’s a moot point as neither you nor I are capable of enumerating all potential attack vectors and risks. So instead of waiting for a known failure to happen because you are personally “confident” in your level of technological omnipotence, we should instead not be so blatantly arrogant and fill the hole waiting to be used.


          Also this is a common problem with framework provided solutions:

          https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage

          This is such a common problem that it has been abstracted into apis for most major desktop frameworks. And every major operating system provides a key ring like service for this purpose.

          Because this is a common hole in your security model.

          • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

            • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

              Damn reading literacy has gone downhill these days.

              Please reread my post.

              But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

              1. OSs provide keyring features already
              2. The framework signal uses (electron) has a built in API for this EXACT NEED

              Cmon, you can do better than this, this is just embarrassing.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, End-to-End Encryption protects data between those ends, not ends themselves. If ends are compromised, no math will help you.

  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So many better standards like XMPP and IRC yet people use Signal and Telegram. I hate marketing.

    • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Signal is an objectively better experience than xmpp, and has about identical security (same with matrix). Irc isn’t secure afaik. Telegram isn’t secure afaik.

      A better wish would be that people in 2024 would stop being fuckign weird about their cell number. Some people don’t want to give it out despite white pages being the standard for years (and how the Terminator knows who to kill). Other people refuse to use a messaging app where they can’t use their phone to sign up. Some people want to sign up with their number but not give it out.