I can't imagine any messenger is private if you invite random people into a group chat 🤦♂️
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
307 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
803 readers
12 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Layer 8 security issue
error: problem between keyboard and chair
but nowadays maybe it works better with screen
PEBCAK Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard!
Knew of an IT help desk employee who used this as a resolution in a ticket. Yeah, he got fired as soon as the customer looked up what it meant.
Also known verbally as an "I. D. Ten T." error (id10t error).
The actual military grade (xmpp based) messengers implement security lables, meaning messages are tagged with the required security clearance and if you invite random people to a chat they can't see the messages.
Wherever Signal is mentioned, I shall mention SimpleX-Chat.
Zero user ID needed to use. No phone numbers and no username.
SimpleX-Chat!!!
Out of band key exchange is great -as long as people can physically meet and exchange QR codes. In reality, they are often sent via less secure means. As always, the humans are the weakest security link.
load more comments
(2 replies)
SimpleX is kinda good, but also we have briar, it does have ids, but more secure and 2P2, i don't know if simpleX was checked by third parties about security, briar was audited by cure53 for example.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Finally someone who understands! Haven't found anything better. Just missing the bridging bit, though that comprises the privacy/security and overall personal opinion why I started using SimpleX.
UI-wise it isn't there yet, but actively being developed so. I miss posting photos (combined) with a comment, now they are all sent separately.
Anyhow if you are looking for privacy go for SimpleX!
load more comments
(3 replies)
EVERYONE SHOULD DOWNLOAD SIGNAL for PHONE-NUMBER-based communication, tho. Proper RCS is not here yet (and won't be in a long while), so let's try to mobilize people to Signal.
DeltaChat is cooler for non-phone based communications, IMO, and decentralization makes it way sexier and worth this tradeoff.
Isn't DeltaChat just PGP encrypted email? Could be wrong
Kinda, but that's the gist of it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I use signal myself but I also use simple X. I can't use delta chat because I use proton for my email and therefore can't use delta.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The self-contained webxdc apps are a pretty cool bonus to what already feels like a normal chat app. I primarily use Signal, but given the current climate of governments trying to force backdoors in to encrypted apps, and the fact it's a US server, I wanted a decentralized backup. And email isn't going anywhere, so it seems like a good option.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Signal is the place for top secret communications, but not for any government business, top secret or not (at least not when using a public instance - they could fork the project to keep decryptable records on gov servers where the official gov instance would run).
at least not when using a public instance - they could fork the project to keep decryptable records on gov servers where the official gov instance would run
All the people in the chat were high enough that the government for free provided them with secure rooms in their homes so everything would be done through government hardware and encryption programs.
Yes, ofc, using Signal was intentional to not keep any records/evidence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The protections for classified information are not just about information security. They are about physical and operational security as well. That's why s SCIF has a "two locks" policy, and requires things like 4" steel doors.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I personally use carrier pigeons with caesar cipher. I know I can't out tech google, so I will go medieval.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What kind of private communication can we talk about if you must have a valid phone number to use Signal?! Lol
Signal recently implemented "usernames" instead of phone numbers
Pretty sure you still need a phone number for an account, though - the usernames are just for sharing your contact with other people.
Most peoples' phone numbers are easily linked to their identity. Which means the government knows who's using Signal.
Usernames are definitely an improvement, but this is a fundamental limitation in Signal's design.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But still, to use it, you need a phone number, which in many countries can only be purchased with a passport. That's the main rule. If privacy is really needed, personal identification should be excluded so that it's basically impossible to determine who owns the account.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Signal is great, that's why I'm suspicious that this recent story is to not only target journalism, but also secure app communication. I wouldn't be surprised if it's used as an excuse to remove signal from the app stores.
Hopefully I'm just being too paranoid.
I don’t think that’s the case, I just think it is old people not know how to use technology.
Additionally, all these people in power are using signal, how is that not a loud endorsement that everyone should be on it.
Sadly, my contact list remains mostly on WhatsApp and Facebook messenger only.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Consider Briar.
Uses Tor. Works directly over Bluetooth/WiFi if the internet is censored or shut down. Decentralized, no accounts. No phone number required.
Of all the options available, I feel like this one is the best suited to current threats (oppressive governments with all-encompassing surveillance, and the willingness to destroy critical institutions and infrastructure).
The app is super barebones right now - feels like SMS - but it works. Main downside is that both participants have to be online at the same time (maybe group chats can work around this?), since there's no servers.
How does the Bluetooth work? If you're close enough to be in bluetooth range with someone aren't you close enough to just speak to them?
One use case could be mass protests/uprisings, where you have a lot of people congregated in a small area. An increasingly popular strategy among governments these days is to just shut down the entire internet in an agitated region. Bluetooth could keep information flowing between people with only mutual contacts, as they move in and out of range.
I'll have to give this a look. Since going to music festivals where I couldn't text my friends I've wanted a decentralized adhoc network message app. Using pgp all messages bounces through all devices within local device network range but you can only read the ones you have private keys for.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Here are two reasons you might not want to use Signal: Your contacts, your settings, your entire Signal experience is tied to a Signal account managed by Signal. Metadata—who you’re talking to, when, and how often—can still be collected and analyzed. Question everything.
"The only metadata that Signal would have access to, is the phone number used to register, the date of initial registration, and the date of last use."
https://www.reddit.com/r/signal/comments/exd92f/what_kind_of_usermessage_metadata_is_observed_and/
The issue of centralization can be a problem, but in regards to metadata, sealed sender does a lot to prevent Signal's servers from knowing who messages who, which makes Signal a lot more private than described here.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The exact reason why it's bad for top secret communications is why individuals should use it or something like it. That is government auditability.
No, it is not. 🚮
Regarding the trick of an adversary gaining access by emailing or SMS'ing a QR code for adding another device...
Why does the new device not demand the PIN before being added?
It does, I tried it. Though, that may have been an addition since the attacks started.
Though, in that specific case - Russian agents conducting espionage via targeted individuals - it's very likely they surveil their targets long enough to catch their device PIN before they nab the phone and return it. In the end, there is very little recourse to defend against this type of Evil Maid attack. Signal is really better at protecting against mass surveillance, but for individuals directly targeted by state espionage? You would need serious opsec, using air-gapped computers kept in safes or guarded by humans 24x7 and other crazy stuff. They have rules about what can be physically done with devices containing top secret information for a good reason.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How's signal compared to Element?
Also, is there a secure way to directly send messages to someone else's phone without the message having to be stored on a central server? As in they're only stored on the recipient device. Is that even possible with how the internet works and how packets are routed between networks? Even if the server has no way of decrypting messages by default, just having the encrypted messages stored there is a liability because your encryption keys can easily get leaked by malware running on your device, phishing, etc.
element keeps a lot of metadata unencrypted. but it is federated, you can choose the server that has access to it (deny federation for the room or set up federation ACLs if important to keep it there), and because of the former it's harder to just shut down.
https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/660
signal doesn't, in theory they don't even know the recipient of your messages (but there's a twist in that part as I remember), but it is centralized around US servers. it is easier to shut down.