Wow. I really had no idea. I’m unsure if this implies anything about its security or not, the article kinda glosses over it I think.
The other comments have clarified that the article was (at best) very misleading.
Always knew this project was a honeypot since they need your phone number to function. Why would a foss app force you to use a phone number? I bet the cia and other three letter organizations spend money advertising signal on various platforms.
For a project like Signal, there are competing aspects of security:
-
privacy and anonymity: keep as little identifiable information around as possible. This can be a life or death thing under repressive governments.
-
safety and anti-abuse: reliably block bad actors such as spammers, and make it possible for users to reliably block specific people (e.g. a creepy stalker). This is really important for Signal to have a chance at mass appeal (which in turn makes it less suspicious to have Signal installed).
Phone number verification is the state of the art approach to make it more expensive for bad actors to create thousands of burner accounts, at the cost of preventing fully anonymous participation (depending on the difficulty of getting a prepaid SIM in your country).
Signal points out that sending verification SMS is actually one of its largest cost centers, currently accounting for 6M USD out of their 14M USD infrastructure budget: https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
I’m sure they would be thrilled if there were cheaper anti-abuse measures.
Bad actors can buy one.
What does it cost to buy hundreds? It’s a great deterrent to bad actors creating many accounts.
I really, really, really dislike using my phone number to verify. Like so much so it kept me off signal until about 6 months ago.
I get it. I don’t like it, but I get the compromise until they can develop a better mechanism
This article may be bullshit, but people are still wasting their time on walled gardens like Signal. Organizations like Signal can easily disappear because they run out of money or, arguably worse, sellout because there is no other way to stay afloat. I wouldn’t use any messenger not compatible with the XMPP internet standard at this point.
Isn’t signal open source though? I know being open source doesn’t magically make it interoperable with other services but even if Signal or Whisper systems sell out, someone could just fork the projects
You cannot run Signal without “Signal - the company” existing. All of their systems are designed to be attached to one specific backend, namely the signal-run backend, meaning without re-engineering the existing infrastructure you cannot simply swap over.
As @kpw already mentioned, “Signal - the company” dying would involve a functional reset of everything: No contacts, no servers, no infrastructure. COULD you fork the thing and build you own system? Sure, but it would be functionally unusable since no one else would be using it, since everything relies on specifically the signal servers to function. A post-signal system could re-use some of their code (if it runs outside signal corp - “works on my machine” could be present in this project as well), but would need to rebuild the actual network.
This is in contrast to something like the matrix protocol: If a specific matrix instance goes kaput, you still have the overall network working. This means that even if an instance implodes, you would have an easy migration path since the matrix network itself persists.
Signal has been forked already, including the back ends. Session is demonstration of this. They changed the architecture. But there’s no reason you yourself could not stand up your own independent signal compatible back ends
Signal the protocol is not going to die. It’s very open source and resilient. Anyone can stand up their own signal compatible servers today and reproduce the network. It’s a critical mass problem, so you would need some reason for a bunch of people to switch signal networks.
Signal the foundation, and the signal foundation servers may die at any time it’s unlikely but it’s possible.
Could some project like Molly.im stand up their own signal servers, and federate with normal signal for people who aren’t on the Molly servers? Absolutely. They could make the signal clients network agnostic, talking to different contacts on different networks. They could do this today. But, running those servers is going to cost money.
I tried XMPP. It was a nightmare.
Finding clients for all the platforms that support all of the extensions that make it a viable alternative to something like WhatsApp or Signal…
If signal can collapse because of a single contributor withdrawing support, then it kind of deserves to die. If It’s not robust enough to withstand the lack of money, it would never stand up to government intervention.
Though I suspect signal is perfectly fine, this is just an outrage seeking article for clicks. Or unnecessary conspiracy. If you don’t trust signal, you have other options like simple x, briar…
It’s a good thought experiment. Let’s assume signal is a conspiracy.
What do we do now?
The article doesn’t seem to have any thesis here. If signal becomes untenable:
Briar and simple x are the most promising in my mind, but I know there’s a lot of proponents of matrix.
I personally don’t think session is sustainable, simply because they don’t have any development going on, no perfect forward secrecy added.
If we’re talking about the signal replacement, we need a way for people to find their contacts. A phone contact list as a social graph is pretty good. I could see that being added as a discovery, optional, service for simplex, or even briar. But that would probably take quite a bit of development of work to do it in a non-Spammy fashion
Lots of Greyzone tankie bullshit on lemmy lately.
