• MynameisAllen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I saw the headline and was ready to rage about why they should just use signal instead. Then I read the article and honestly this is a fucking genius use of tech

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I read it and don’t understand. Why is this better than Signal? Or the 500 other secure file/messaging protocols?

      Jabber seemed to work perfectly for Snowden…

      • MynameisAllen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 hours ago

        For one, ease of access. Say you’re trying to break a story, who are you going to message with signal? Because you’re going to need to get that contact info somehow right?

        Snowden is permanently stranded in Russia. That’s not exactly a great example of an anonymous source.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Say you’re trying to break a story, who are you going to message with signal?

          …The Guardian?

          Because you’re going to need to get that contact info somehow right?

          Use your browser? These are strange questions.

          Snowden is permanently stranded in Russia. That’s not exactly a great example of an anonymous source.

          Did you notice that I used the past tense?

      • rosco385@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal, but they could still tell you’re sendig a secure message.

        What the Guardian is doing is hiding that secure chat traffic inside the Guardian app, so packet sniffing would only show you’re accessing news.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal

          How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted. And why does it matter if they know you’re sending a message? Literally everyone using Signal is sending a message.

          • papertowels@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted

            Not my specialty, but signals end to end encryption is akin to sealing a letter. Nobody but the sender and the recipient can open that letter.

            But you still gotta send it through the mail. That’s the network traffic analysis that can be used.

            Here’s an example of why that could be bad.

                  • Roughknite@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    15 hours ago

                    How dumb are you? Like someone said the point is they can see the fact that you sent a secured message period. Not with the guardian app though. Pretty easy to comprehend so I am confused why you are acting so stupid.

                  • papertowels@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    19 hours ago

                    How exactly do you think encryption prevents the analysis of seeing when an encrypted message is sent? It feels like you’re trying to hand-waive away by saying “encryption means you’re good!”

                    Cyber security is not my thing, but my understanding is that you’d still see network traffic - you just wouldn’t know what it says.

                  • Natanael@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    19 hours ago

                    I run a cryptography forum

                    Encryption doesn’t hide data sizes unless you take extra steps

                  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    19 hours ago

                    Packet data has headers that can identify where it’s coming from and where it’s going to. The contents of the packet can be securely encrypted, but destination is not. So long as you know which IPs Signal’s servers use (which is public information), it’s trivial to know when a device is sending/receiving messages with Signal.

                    This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing, it’s impossible to know the actual destination because that’s part of the encrypted payload that a different node will decrypt and forward.