Recently a bureaucrat who wanted to make a mass protest out of his criticism of Indian Election Commission's drive to remove voters, was picked up by Indian Police and his Signal metadata was accessible to the Police. What is the solution to this thing?
His interview does not tell us if it was metadata or actual calls that were surveilled which could point to device compromise too.
"What caught him by surprise, he told ThePrint, was the Special Cell officers' access to his calls made via Signal"
That requires access to the actual phone and the unlock code in the case of WhatsApp (you need to identify to add a WhatsApp web client).
For telegram it's a bit easier yes, but the user can set up an additional password. I have done so of course. Note that telegram is not E2EE so they can give your stuff to the police at any time unlike WhatsApp and signal.
For signal I don't know as I don't really use it but i understand it works the same way as WhatsApp, scan a QR code and authenticate to the phone.
Also, with all 3 systems it's clearly visible when you look at the linked systems.
It is possible to intercept text messages and phone calls in such a way that the recipient never even knows a text message or phone call was sent to them in the first place. SMS is an extremely insecure channel for handling authentication codes.
Yes I know but when you want to link a WhatsApp Web client to a phone with WhatsApp, SMS is not used. You need to scan a QR with the phone in question and sign in to the phone.
SMS is used to register WhatsApp to a new phone, but that signs the original phone out. Also, you need the pin code that WhatsApp forces you to set. If you don't have it you have to wait a week if you got a recycled number. Also the original account holder is notified you tried it.
So this method cannot be used by the police to snoop unnoticed. I believe signal works the same as WhatsApp here, it also forces you to set a pin now.
For telegram this can be used yes but you can set an optional extra password. And also like I said telegram is not E2EE anyway so it's open to warrants.
I have worked with Trail of Bits before and their cryptography teams are of the toppest of notches, I still have deep skepticism of Signal though. There are safer ways to use it, never getting push notifications is one part of it. I think their work is admirable, but the need for them to bootstrap you with SMS is a gotcha... they have usernames now, but even with those you have to have to bootstrap it with a number/identity.
Signal's mission is to provide maximized privacy in a form the non-technical public can use.
A messaging service filled with bots and spammers is not usable, and possibly not affordable to Signal (what proportion of resources would be spent on spam/bots). What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number?
Lots of security geeks want Signal to adopt practices unusable to the public. They've made clear that unsusable security is not in their mission.
That happens when public uses it, en masse, in the first place. And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it.
So who is this serving eventually? A very few, mostly "technical public", in complete contrast to what you have said.
I suspect Signal's goal is something entirely else. For them it's just two things:
1. Some sort of shallow ideology (started with the founder and the flame kept alive by the later leaders who often come across ideological groupies; the last bit is a bit strong but whatever)
2. Executing based on that for the sake of executing that because they can
What their intention is not: Signal ever becoming IM app of choice anywhere and possibly they might have their reasons for this. One of those reasons could be affordability as you have said it.
Note: in case this wasn't clear, the moment you attach a "phone number" you make it inherently unsafe for most, like 99.353959353%, of "general non-technical public" to use Signal and remain really unidentifiable. Once they are identified - in most countries (and now even in places like USA it seems) only thing needed after that is being "picked up" and rest will be just sung even without a device. I mean it's so absurd to even not think about it is that it's ridiculous. So no, it is DEFINITELY not "non-technical public can use".
> And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it.
I know plenty of non-technical users on Signal. Based on news reports, it's used widely by activists. I see journalists advertising their Signal contact information for tips. It's recommended government-wide in the US by CISA and is pre-installed on US intelligence community computers, including in the CIA.
True they can make their choices but it also means I won't support them in any way. Or recommend them.
I'd use something that's truly decentralised but signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp. Just one that promises to behave better. But what's a promise worth these days?
A decentralised network would mean a guarantee that they can't do anything bad. I'll take that over promises and good intentions any day.
I don't care about the masses. If signing up for a matrix account is too annoying for them they don't really care about privacy anyway. After all it's the same they have to do for any online shop. Just create a username and password. Somehow it's not a problem for the masses if they wanna order a phone charger but for matrix it's suddenly 'too complicated'?
People like you who equate signal and WhatsApp are also responsible for not making any progress due to ideological stubbornness it’s something that I absolutely despise from a part of HN crowd here.
Great, I'm happy to be a nail in the coffin of the signal advocacy.
Remember how everyone jumped on Google when they promised to do no evil? Now they're one of the most abundant mass surveillance companies in the world and we can't move away because they're too big to fail. The same with WhatsApp. People jumped on it because it was good, then nobody left when meta bought it because all their friends were on it.
Signal is one sale away from being evil too. They might not sell it but we've been conned so many times by big tech that I will only take technical guarantees, not promises that can be broken. We have to avoid getting locked in again.
And really, lots of progress is made in real open communications. Matrix is getting more mature by the day. NATO uses it, the French government and several others. And the good thing is, you can always run your own server and connect to the hive. Nobody can tell you what to do, nobody can tell you to surveil your users like the EU is planning to do.
We need something truly open. Not a WhatsApp light.
Their code is open source but you can't really do anything with that. You can't run your own server on the network, and they've previously stated they don't want third party implementations of clients.
Again, I don't trust promises anymore. Eventually they're going to need more money and that money will come with strings attached. If some org like Matrix would get bought people would just decouple themselves from their network. With Signal we can't do that because they are the only operator.
> Their code is open source but you can't really do anything with that. You can't run your own server on the network, and they've previously stated they don't want third party implementations of clients.
There are third-party forks and clients. Parts of the US government use one.
Interesting, I hadn't seen that; thank you. Though that is dated 10 years ago and they haven't done it yet, or not fully successfully. It might be challenging to identify third party clients, though maybe each app inevitably has a unique fingerprint.
One possible solution is to only be able to contact someone if you have received an invitation code from them out of band. E.g. "scan this QR code to add me on signal". Such an invitation code should default to single-use but users should be allowed to generate standing invitations so that businesses and the like can print and post one in their store or whatever. Start getting spam from one of your standing invitations? Just revoke it and make a new one. Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions than the half baked one I came up with after thinking about it for a minute, they're clever cookies.
Welcome back to “key signing parties”. PGP never got enough adoption. At least Signal is simple enough that the (ahem) leaders of the US can (mostly) manage to use it.
Unfortunately, in an end to end encrypted messaging system, an identity is denoted by some sort of long number. That is an inescapable fact. Trusting a third party to correctly map, say, a phone number to a cryptographic identity number eventually results in the sort of attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal. The PGP people were doing the right thing when they were doing education in the form of key signing parties. That is something the user needs to know.
Anonymous messengers have no real choice and have to use some sort of number for identity. See Briar, Session or Tox for examples.
> attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal
Could you give an example of an actual attack of this kind on Signal? The 'Signalgate' event was someone mistakenly inviting the wrong person to a chat.
Allegedly, Signalgate was caused by Apple helpfully mapping the wrong number to a name. Then Signal mapped that number to the wrong cryptographic identity.
> Allegedly, Signalgate was caused by Apple helpfully mapping the wrong number to a name.
In what system is Apple mapping numbers to names? The address book is maintained by users. An AppleID? How could that happen? And it would seem to result in many errors before the Signal error.
I thought it was simply caused by someone adding the wrong person to the chat?
> The Intercept
Per that article, the cause is unknown. The speculated cause in the article is that The Intercept somehow lost control of the user id, and Signal recycles user ids. That seems like a bad practice generally and with this predictable consequence, and especially bad for an application people trust with security.
> Twilio
This was Twilio employees caught by a phishing attack. I wonder what more secure, and affordable, options Signal has. Operate their own SMS infrastructure - would that be more secure that Twilio's? Use something besides SMS - would on-boarding become too hard? Stop using phone numbers - they need some spammer and bot filter, so what replaces it?
> Russian State-Backed Hackers
A phishing attack on Signal users, using a QR or link to make the attacker a linked device. That setup seems risky for non-technical users; I wonder how Signal could better secure it.
That and other attacks are described here. The other attacks all require compromising the device on which Signal is installed:
Leaders of the US use an Israeli backdoored version of Signal (TM-Signal) TeleMessage by Smarsh was used by DOD, CPB, and others for records retention reasons... also hacked to smithereens.
People seem to get on with Discord invite links just fine. You don't have to do the "confirm that all these emoji are the same on both your devices" dance to stop spam.
> People seem to get on with Discord invite links just fine.
Discord is used by a narrow group of technically literate people. Signal is for everyone. Your grandparents probably don't use Discord, but if they can text then they can use Signal.
Imagine setting up a chat for an organization you're working with - will you be willing to process 20 out-of-band QR codes? 50?
On a smaller scale, it's clear that Signal believes a functioning address book is necessary for end user adoption. For example, by default Signal notifies you of people in your phone contacts who are on or who later join Signal.
> Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions
I have yet to see a solution better than the one they chose, for their requirements. Notice that there are none in this discussion.
It is extremely rare to find pro-privacy people speak out against Signal's phone number registration system. It is a very obvious privacy flaw that all hobbyist cryptographers will be eager to wave away for some or another reason. Truly shameful. Thanks for voicing your Signal scepticism. I am a Signal sceptic too.
Decreases what info Signal needs to collect and retain about a user. When using an SMS verification as a proof, Signal needs to log the phone number, because if they didn't, one spammer could use one phone number to create 10^99 accounts.
When using payment as proof, they can verify that payment occurred, validate the account and then immediately forget about the transaction. One spammer would still have to pay 10^99 times to create that many accounts.
It's still often cheaper (and faster) to grab a one-time verification number than to go through payment-based verification. Especially for anything that only needs a single SMS confirmation.
You buy a Mullvad scratch card on Amazon and you redeem the token string.
Mullvad also offer the option to put your card number into the Mullvad website, and I'm sure many privacy conscious people would be very reluctant to do that.
Card payments these days leave far too big a trail. The bank knows, the intermediary (e.g. Stripe) knows, and the merchant (e.g. Mullvad) has to keep records for accounting/tax requirements.
If your concern is "muh phone number", then you can pay and not have to give the phone number to sign up.
It's already the case today (and has been for years) that you don't need to give strangers your phone number to chat on Signal. My username is soatok.45; try to get my phone number if you can.
If you want absolutely no info to be collected, ever, and there to be zero cost on the end user too, be prepared to welcome your new spam overlords. Because the people who will benefit the most from a zero cost signup that only requires a username are spammers.
I'm a bit surprised by this dismissal. Of course some info must be collected, or there must be some cost to enter (probably both I mean phone number is also a cost, but one most people already sunk). But we can still debate the best way, right?
For example:
* Are you absolutely positive signal will never have a bug that let attackers reveal contact phone numbers? I really trust in their secure coding skills, but this class of vulnerabilities (like 2fa leaj) happened to even the biggest players.
* One of the reasons signal collects phone numbers (and asks for a contacts permission) is to check which contracts are already on signal. For some people or in some governments even having a signal account is an opsec problem (to be fair, they have a secure privacy-preserving protocol for this - as you know - and it's possible to avoid this footgun if necessary)
They are [1] implementing unlinkable payments so all that is known by credit card is that you purchased Signal and Signal doesn't know which credit card goes with which account.
>Signal is an obvious honeypot.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might say they don't do enough to protect metadata privacy but it was never made to be an anonymous messenger, it was made to be a private messenger. You can easily check the end-to-end encryption in the code (reproducible builds on all platforms except iOS BTW!). This person audited Signal recently [2].
>They make no money and have no plans to.
They make money from donations and paid backups and they might make money from paid accounts.
I'm also worried about that these days. They posted an article a while back that Signal costs $50m per year to run, and that they make that money from "things". Together with how low a profile they keep, I'm not convinced they aren't a honeypot.
I love Signal and it's still my preferred messenger, but if it came out that they're backed by some government agency, I wouldn't be extremely surprised.
I and not necessarily many, but at least some people I know donate (and, somewhat irregularly, will continue to do so) small-ish amounts to the foundation. [1]
You’d imagine that ought to be sufficient to cover running costs. However, it might actually not be enough with hardware prices these days? Not sure.
They’ve also recently (edit: “recently-ish”, it’s actually been a year!) introduced paid storage for backups, which I’d imagine comes with some amount of profit margin, too. [2]
50 million a year is about 50 cents per user as they are said to have 100M active users. So it's not that bad really. Nothing that would require a 10$/month subscription.
Recently a bureaucrat who wanted to make a mass protest out of his criticism of Indian Election Commission's drive to remove voters, was picked up by Indian Police and his Signal metadata was accessible to the Police. What is the solution to this thing?
His interview does not tell us if it was metadata or actual calls that were surveilled which could point to device compromise too.
"What caught him by surprise, he told ThePrint, was the Special Cell officers' access to his calls made via Signal"
https://theprint.in/india/ex-civil-servant-ashish-joshi-reca...
Bit of a positive piece amid a negative headline this week: https://cybernews.com/privacy/police-telegram-whatsapp-signa...
That requires access to the actual phone and the unlock code in the case of WhatsApp (you need to identify to add a WhatsApp web client).
For telegram it's a bit easier yes, but the user can set up an additional password. I have done so of course. Note that telegram is not E2EE so they can give your stuff to the police at any time unlike WhatsApp and signal.
For signal I don't know as I don't really use it but i understand it works the same way as WhatsApp, scan a QR code and authenticate to the phone.
Also, with all 3 systems it's clearly visible when you look at the linked systems.
It is possible to intercept text messages and phone calls in such a way that the recipient never even knows a text message or phone call was sent to them in the first place. SMS is an extremely insecure channel for handling authentication codes.
https://youtu.be/wVyu7NB7W6Y
Yes I know but when you want to link a WhatsApp Web client to a phone with WhatsApp, SMS is not used. You need to scan a QR with the phone in question and sign in to the phone.
SMS is used to register WhatsApp to a new phone, but that signs the original phone out. Also, you need the pin code that WhatsApp forces you to set. If you don't have it you have to wait a week if you got a recycled number. Also the original account holder is notified you tried it.
So this method cannot be used by the police to snoop unnoticed. I believe signal works the same as WhatsApp here, it also forces you to set a pin now.
For telegram this can be used yes but you can set an optional extra password. And also like I said telegram is not E2EE anyway so it's open to warrants.
For any high-trust system, users need to know exactly what was verified, what was not, and which assumptions the verification depends on.
I have worked with Trail of Bits before and their cryptography teams are of the toppest of notches, I still have deep skepticism of Signal though. There are safer ways to use it, never getting push notifications is one part of it. I think their work is admirable, but the need for them to bootstrap you with SMS is a gotcha... they have usernames now, but even with those you have to have to bootstrap it with a number/identity.
Signal's mission is to provide maximized privacy in a form the non-technical public can use.
A messaging service filled with bots and spammers is not usable, and possibly not affordable to Signal (what proportion of resources would be spent on spam/bots). What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number?
Lots of security geeks want Signal to adopt practices unusable to the public. They've made clear that unsusable security is not in their mission.
> in a form the non-technical public can use.
That happens when public uses it, en masse, in the first place. And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it.
So who is this serving eventually? A very few, mostly "technical public", in complete contrast to what you have said.
I suspect Signal's goal is something entirely else. For them it's just two things:
1. Some sort of shallow ideology (started with the founder and the flame kept alive by the later leaders who often come across ideological groupies; the last bit is a bit strong but whatever)
2. Executing based on that for the sake of executing that because they can
What their intention is not: Signal ever becoming IM app of choice anywhere and possibly they might have their reasons for this. One of those reasons could be affordability as you have said it.
Note: in case this wasn't clear, the moment you attach a "phone number" you make it inherently unsafe for most, like 99.353959353%, of "general non-technical public" to use Signal and remain really unidentifiable. Once they are identified - in most countries (and now even in places like USA it seems) only thing needed after that is being "picked up" and rest will be just sung even without a device. I mean it's so absurd to even not think about it is that it's ridiculous. So no, it is DEFINITELY not "non-technical public can use".
> And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it.
I know plenty of non-technical users on Signal. Based on news reports, it's used widely by activists. I see journalists advertising their Signal contact information for tips. It's recommended government-wide in the US by CISA and is pre-installed on US intelligence community computers, including in the CIA.
True they can make their choices but it also means I won't support them in any way. Or recommend them.
I'd use something that's truly decentralised but signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp. Just one that promises to behave better. But what's a promise worth these days?
A decentralised network would mean a guarantee that they can't do anything bad. I'll take that over promises and good intentions any day.
I don't care about the masses. If signing up for a matrix account is too annoying for them they don't really care about privacy anyway. After all it's the same they have to do for any online shop. Just create a username and password. Somehow it's not a problem for the masses if they wanna order a phone charger but for matrix it's suddenly 'too complicated'?
People like you who equate signal and WhatsApp are also responsible for not making any progress due to ideological stubbornness it’s something that I absolutely despise from a part of HN crowd here.
Great, I'm happy to be a nail in the coffin of the signal advocacy.
Remember how everyone jumped on Google when they promised to do no evil? Now they're one of the most abundant mass surveillance companies in the world and we can't move away because they're too big to fail. The same with WhatsApp. People jumped on it because it was good, then nobody left when meta bought it because all their friends were on it.
Signal is one sale away from being evil too. They might not sell it but we've been conned so many times by big tech that I will only take technical guarantees, not promises that can be broken. We have to avoid getting locked in again.
And really, lots of progress is made in real open communications. Matrix is getting more mature by the day. NATO uses it, the French government and several others. And the good thing is, you can always run your own server and connect to the hive. Nobody can tell you what to do, nobody can tell you to surveil your users like the EU is planning to do.
We need something truly open. Not a WhatsApp light.
Signal is a small organization and nothing like Google. Signal is a non-profit and their code is open source.
Their code is open source but you can't really do anything with that. You can't run your own server on the network, and they've previously stated they don't want third party implementations of clients.
Again, I don't trust promises anymore. Eventually they're going to need more money and that money will come with strings attached. If some org like Matrix would get bought people would just decouple themselves from their network. With Signal we can't do that because they are the only operator.
> Their code is open source but you can't really do anything with that. You can't run your own server on the network, and they've previously stated they don't want third party implementations of clients.
There are third-party forks and clients. Parts of the US government use one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49678919
Also, you can audit the code.
They've previously said they would ban third party clients: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
Interesting, I hadn't seen that; thank you. Though that is dated 10 years ago and they haven't done it yet, or not fully successfully. It might be challenging to identify third party clients, though maybe each app inevitably has a unique fingerprint.
> signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp
For me the difference is in the ownership. Who owns each. Which is BigCorp? That’s why I trust one more than the other.
Ownership can change. That's the problem. It happened to WhatsApp itself! Meta bought a network with the userbase that was already too big to leave.
> What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number?
Since when is giving out your phone number a "more private" option ?
You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people.
> You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people.
You are deliberately missing the point.
Signal are gatekeeping these new advanced security features behind a phone number wall (soon to become paywall if some posts here are to be believed).
If it's not, let us know a solution (to Signal's actual problem as stated in the GP) that is more private.
One possible solution is to only be able to contact someone if you have received an invitation code from them out of band. E.g. "scan this QR code to add me on signal". Such an invitation code should default to single-use but users should be allowed to generate standing invitations so that businesses and the like can print and post one in their store or whatever. Start getting spam from one of your standing invitations? Just revoke it and make a new one. Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions than the half baked one I came up with after thinking about it for a minute, they're clever cookies.
Welcome back to “key signing parties”. PGP never got enough adoption. At least Signal is simple enough that the (ahem) leaders of the US can (mostly) manage to use it.
Unfortunately, in an end to end encrypted messaging system, an identity is denoted by some sort of long number. That is an inescapable fact. Trusting a third party to correctly map, say, a phone number to a cryptographic identity number eventually results in the sort of attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal. The PGP people were doing the right thing when they were doing education in the form of key signing parties. That is something the user needs to know.
Anonymous messengers have no real choice and have to use some sort of number for identity. See Briar, Session or Tox for examples.
My comments on Signalgate 1.0:
https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:sg
> attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal
Could you give an example of an actual attack of this kind on Signal? The 'Signalgate' event was someone mistakenly inviting the wrong person to a chat.
Allegedly, Signalgate was caused by Apple helpfully mapping the wrong number to a name. Then Signal mapped that number to the wrong cryptographic identity.
A Third Party Breached The Intercept’s Signal Tip Line and Has Been Soliciting Whistleblowers https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/intercept-signal-tip-line-bre...
Twilio Incident: What Signal Users Need to Know https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/4850133017242-T...
Russian State-Backed Hackers Intensify Attacks on Signal Messenger Accounts https://thecyberexpress.com/signal-attacks-russian-fackers-t...
Thanks for the rundown.
> Allegedly, Signalgate was caused by Apple helpfully mapping the wrong number to a name.
In what system is Apple mapping numbers to names? The address book is maintained by users. An AppleID? How could that happen? And it would seem to result in many errors before the Signal error.
I thought it was simply caused by someone adding the wrong person to the chat?
> The Intercept
Per that article, the cause is unknown. The speculated cause in the article is that The Intercept somehow lost control of the user id, and Signal recycles user ids. That seems like a bad practice generally and with this predictable consequence, and especially bad for an application people trust with security.
> Twilio
This was Twilio employees caught by a phishing attack. I wonder what more secure, and affordable, options Signal has. Operate their own SMS infrastructure - would that be more secure that Twilio's? Use something besides SMS - would on-boarding become too hard? Stop using phone numbers - they need some spammer and bot filter, so what replaces it?
> Russian State-Backed Hackers
A phishing attack on Signal users, using a QR or link to make the attacker a linked device. That setup seems risky for non-technical users; I wonder how Signal could better secure it.
That and other attacks are described here. The other attacks all require compromising the device on which Signal is installed:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/rus...
Leaders of the US use an Israeli backdoored version of Signal (TM-Signal) TeleMessage by Smarsh was used by DOD, CPB, and others for records retention reasons... also hacked to smithereens.
Requiring manual key verification is a bad design that doesn't scale or benefit most people.
People seem to get on with Discord invite links just fine. You don't have to do the "confirm that all these emoji are the same on both your devices" dance to stop spam.
> People seem to get on with Discord invite links just fine.
Discord is used by a narrow group of technically literate people. Signal is for everyone. Your grandparents probably don't use Discord, but if they can text then they can use Signal.
Imagine setting up a chat for an organization you're working with - will you be willing to process 20 out-of-band QR codes? 50?
On a smaller scale, it's clear that Signal believes a functioning address book is necessary for end user adoption. For example, by default Signal notifies you of people in your phone contacts who are on or who later join Signal.
> Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions
I have yet to see a solution better than the one they chose, for their requirements. Notice that there are none in this discussion.
It is extremely rare to find pro-privacy people speak out against Signal's phone number registration system. It is a very obvious privacy flaw that all hobbyist cryptographers will be eager to wave away for some or another reason. Truly shameful. Thanks for voicing your Signal scepticism. I am a Signal sceptic too.
They will allow registering without phone number as a paid option soon.
> registering without phone number as a paid option soon
Replacing the need to register with a phone number with a requirement to pay is a better option how, exactly ?
Decreases what info Signal needs to collect and retain about a user. When using an SMS verification as a proof, Signal needs to log the phone number, because if they didn't, one spammer could use one phone number to create 10^99 accounts.
When using payment as proof, they can verify that payment occurred, validate the account and then immediately forget about the transaction. One spammer would still have to pay 10^99 times to create that many accounts.
It's still often cheaper (and faster) to grab a one-time verification number than to go through payment-based verification. Especially for anything that only needs a single SMS confirmation.
Payment leaves a huge identification trail because of all the know your customer stuff these days.
If they accept monero or something then ok but I doubt they will.
They could make it so all that is known by banks is that you purchased the service. Like how Nym does it or how you can buy Mullvad credits on Amazon.
https://nym.com/zk-nyms
Ideally they accept Monero and do unlinkable payments but I doubt they will accept Monero. Hopefully they accept some crypto.
> you can buy Mullvad credits on Amazon
That is not the same thing.
You buy a Mullvad scratch card on Amazon and you redeem the token string.
Mullvad also offer the option to put your card number into the Mullvad website, and I'm sure many privacy conscious people would be very reluctant to do that.
Card payments these days leave far too big a trail. The bank knows, the intermediary (e.g. Stripe) knows, and the merchant (e.g. Mullvad) has to keep records for accounting/tax requirements.
It’d be pretty disappointing if they started including cryptocurrency features in their stack and didn’t accept it.
They added that BS and then didn't do anything with it.
Molly is going to add a Monero integration while also having various other advantages.
They don't accept crypto donations directly or accept them for their backups so I assume they wont for registration.
Also when they start dealing with payments there might be regulatory requirements like record keeping for a certain period.
I find convincing that phone numbers or payment is the best way to avoid spams at their scale.
If your concern is "muh phone number", then you can pay and not have to give the phone number to sign up.
It's already the case today (and has been for years) that you don't need to give strangers your phone number to chat on Signal. My username is soatok.45; try to get my phone number if you can.
If you want absolutely no info to be collected, ever, and there to be zero cost on the end user too, be prepared to welcome your new spam overlords. Because the people who will benefit the most from a zero cost signup that only requires a username are spammers.
I'm a bit surprised by this dismissal. Of course some info must be collected, or there must be some cost to enter (probably both I mean phone number is also a cost, but one most people already sunk). But we can still debate the best way, right?
For example:
* Are you absolutely positive signal will never have a bug that let attackers reveal contact phone numbers? I really trust in their secure coding skills, but this class of vulnerabilities (like 2fa leaj) happened to even the biggest players.
* One of the reasons signal collects phone numbers (and asks for a contacts permission) is to check which contracts are already on signal. For some people or in some governments even having a signal account is an opsec problem (to be fair, they have a secure privacy-preserving protocol for this - as you know - and it's possible to avoid this footgun if necessary)
two weeks
[flagged]
> Lol how is that any better at all?
They are [1] implementing unlinkable payments so all that is known by credit card is that you purchased Signal and Signal doesn't know which credit card goes with which account.
>Signal is an obvious honeypot.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might say they don't do enough to protect metadata privacy but it was never made to be an anonymous messenger, it was made to be a private messenger. You can easily check the end-to-end encryption in the code (reproducible builds on all platforms except iOS BTW!). This person audited Signal recently [2].
>They make no money and have no plans to.
They make money from donations and paid backups and they might make money from paid accounts.
[1] https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commit/7da3357b5...
[2] https://soatok.blog/2025/02/18/reviewing-the-cryptography-us...
And apparently, just like Telegram, just like WhatsApp, they readily merge the username with your number if numbers are already saved.
Ditto for Trail of Bits, worked with them recently and they do some really impressive quality work, and have some very sharp guys working for them.
[flagged]
You commented this twice, what's your backing, besides 'they're non-commercial thus must be fed by nefarious actors'?
I'm also worried about that these days. They posted an article a while back that Signal costs $50m per year to run, and that they make that money from "things". Together with how low a profile they keep, I'm not convinced they aren't a honeypot.
I love Signal and it's still my preferred messenger, but if it came out that they're backed by some government agency, I wouldn't be extremely surprised.
> Together with how low a profile they keep, I'm not convinced they aren't a honeypot.
You don't need to be convinced of such things. In fact, it's better if technical people remain skeptical and check.
I did in 2025. https://soatok.blog/2025/02/18/reviewing-the-cryptography-us...
This helps put my mind at ease, thanks.
I and not necessarily many, but at least some people I know donate (and, somewhat irregularly, will continue to do so) small-ish amounts to the foundation. [1]
You’d imagine that ought to be sufficient to cover running costs. However, it might actually not be enough with hardware prices these days? Not sure.
They’ve also recently (edit: “recently-ish”, it’s actually been a year!) introduced paid storage for backups, which I’d imagine comes with some amount of profit margin, too. [2]
[1] https://signal.org/donate/
[2] https://signal.org/blog/introducing-secure-backups/
I donate too, monthly (and subscribed to backups, even though I don't need them), but some more transparency in their finances would be good.
50 million a year is about 50 cents per user as they are said to have 100M active users. So it's not that bad really. Nothing that would require a 10$/month subscription.
[flagged]
You're absolutely right! Let's delve deeper...