• 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    My only gripe with signal, is the use of phone numbers as usernames. Not everyone with whom I want to communicate via signal has a phone number. I understand why they went this route, but wish there was an alternative way.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can use a username only for finding and adding friends, you only need the phone number to create an account. That’s probably because Signal started as an alternative to Messages (or whatever it was called back then), so you could send SMS if you wanted, or secure messages to friends w/ Signal. The whole point was to be a gentle transition from SMS to private messaging. However, they eventually dropped the SMS feature, but it seems they kept the phone number as username thing.

      It kind of sucks, but I think that’s a reasonable limitation since the vast majority of people using this service will have a phone number. You could probably even sign up for a free trial of something (e.g. Google Fi) to sign up for Signal, set up the username, and then drop the phone number service. I don’t know if there are any problems with this, but I don’t think they do anything with your phone number after everything is set up.

      • EpicGamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think another reason they use a phone number is that it can mitigate issues with people or bots creating hundred of accounts maybe

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          But there are plenty of other services that don’t require a phone number that also seem to mitigate that issue, so while it may be a convenient option, it’s hardly the only option.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah. And I don’t fault them for this route. I just with I could sign up without a phone number. Maybe the username thing is a predecessor to allowing usernam-only registration in the future.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, hopefully. It would also be awesome to have a web login so I could access messages and whatnot when using someone else’s computer w/o having to install something.

          I don’t know what direction they’re going, but I’m honestly okay with the caveats that currently exist.

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Having web logon would mean they would need to hold the decryption key in some form (or have a weak decryption key, your credentials), so, while convenient, I think it would degrade security and possibly privacy. Unless you mean to receive new messages, the way the desktop app works?

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Why would they be joking? There’s really not a big difference between how their mobile and desktop apps work and what’s possible in the web. It can fetch the keys from my computer or my phone just like their other apps work, and store the keys and whatnot encrypted in temporary local storage, just like on the phone. WebAssembly could allow them to share the code and retain similar performance.

                  I honestly don’t see an issue here. If they need help, I’d be happy to lend a hand.

          • Manalith
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’d be more interested in allowing more than one Android device at a time like MySudo. They let you link Windows with a phone so I wouldn’t think it would be too hard to implement.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sure, and I think that would send a message to all of your contacts that a new account is using that number, but I’m honestly not sure. If you have an active account (i.e. on a desktop or something), I think you can just change your number if that happens (i.e. get another temp number).

          It’s certainly more convenient if you use a longer-term number, but I think it’s feasible with a throwaway number. Once your account is set up, Signal doesn’t need your number for anything if you disable publishing that.

          • vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It does send a “your safety number has been updated with user” message. But not as an automated message. Only when a new signal thread is started.

            Haven’t tried when only logged in to desktop and changing devices / numbers so I can’t speak to that.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      It creeps me the fuck out. I do not get why a service that bills itself as secure needs to know something that can be traced back to my credit card and name. I won’t use Telegram or Signal because of this.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s about your posture. Most people who use signal use it to have privacy from governments. They’re not hiding that they use signal, they’re hiding what they write on signal. In this case, using your phone number isn’t a big deal.

        Some people, have a tighter posture, which could translate to your position. In that case, something like Briar could fit the bill.

        Lastly, security and privacy are not the same thing. Google products are secure, but they are not private. Self hosted sftp, for example, is private, but may not be secure. Signal is definitely secure, at least enough for general and governmental use. So, it seems, is telegram. Signal is more private than telegram in many ways, but it is not the gold standard for privacy (because of its use of phone numbers as usernames), but it is “good enough” for the masses. The balance between good for everyone and zero-knowledge private for everyone is delicate, potentially impossible. Honestly, I don’t know if signal was able to strike that balance perfectly, but they did a much better job than many other services, certainly than those others that are accepted by the masses.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          But putting a phone number in immediately exposes protesters to association. Sure, Signal can’t give out the contents of messages, but it still has the chain of contact. So if a government gets hold of this record, legally or otherwise, now you have everyone associated to a suspect phone number/person and can start rounding them up.

          It’s the complete antithesis of freedom of association when there’s a record of everyone that you’ve contacted. The contents don’t enter into that problem, and I can’t see why they feel the need to keep this as part of their system. It purposely makes it impossible to use this for something like peaceful protest. So, no, it doesn’t give you privacy from governments, because governments that don’t respect freedom of association will use that information to punish dissidents.

          I can’t imagine any reason to use phone numbers except to purposefully keep this chain of association for governments to use. Even Facebook doesn’t require this sort of personal proof, and it’s suspicious as hell.

          • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Sure, Signal can’t give out the contents of messages, but it still has the chain of contact.

            it doesn’t. they’ve been ordered to hand over data multiple times, and the only thing tied to the phone number they have is 1. time the account has been created and 2. last time the account connected to the server: https://signal.org/bigbrother/

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re mistaken on the basis of your beliefs here. Signal only had two pieces of data around your phone number (joined datestamp, last online datestamp). This means that governments can’t petition signal for any more information, since signal simply doesn’t have it to give (by design).

            Your point on fb is hilarious, because they do require it. They just don’t require you to input it, because (1) they already have it and (2) you freely provide the missing pieces without them even asking. But, like I said earlier, if this goes against your posture, use something like Briar or Matrix or whatever. Choice exists, because everyone is different and has different postures.

              • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                That is my concern with any US based company. With all the information we have how their government agencies used both legal and illegal means to access data how can you ever think those companies can protect your privacy even if they sincerely want to?

              • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Them being a us company is a very valid concern, and one I share. If I were a dissident, I likely wouldn’t use signal just because they’re us based.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Signal pitch is that you don’t need identity security so long as the encryption is strong enough.

        That is, incidentally, the same pitch Botcoiner make.

    • ???@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’ve been using it for a while and by far the biggest issue is how giant the backup file is and now about 3Gb of data were lost because of a signal version mismatch between an old phone I was using and the new one I switched to.

    • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      For me, today the best messaging app is SimpleX, it is a bit in early development but it’s already really nice.