-33
Signal Facing Collapse After CIA Cuts Funding (kitklarenberg.substack.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Intentional conspiracy, judging by who the author writes for

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    deleted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yeah they had perfect forward secrecy when they forked from signal, and then they tore it out because it was too complex to fit in there model. That's an admission their bad programmers, and we shouldn't trust them with crypto, or nefarious and we shouldn't trust them with crypto.

    Going back to what's next:

    Contact Discovery is the major hurdle to adoption of any really secure platform. I do appreciate signals SGX enclaves, they solve the problem in a nice way... If you trust SGX enclaves. That being said, that's not the only way to do it. Though I can't think of many contact discovery mechanisms that don't rely on a central source of truth. Maybe that's the necessary evil for onboarding, but it doesn't have to be part of the day-to-day operations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent