• 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.

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

      Packet data has headers that can identify where it’s coming from and where it’s going to

      Wouldn’t you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

      This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing

      TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

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

            If the header isn’t encrypted it’d be easy to inspect, and thus easy to determine where it goes, which is why it matters.

            Based on your questions, it sounds like you’re expecting the network traffic itself to be encrypted, as if there were a VPN. Does signal offer such a feature? My understanding is that the messages themselves are encrypted, but the traffic isn’t, but I could be wrong.

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

              If the header isn’t encrypted it’d be easy to inspect

              Easy for whom? How are you getting access to the traffic info?

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

                You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

                I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

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

                  You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

                  LOL no? I’d never blow the whistle on my employer from my desk. Even if I did, I would connect to a different network.

                  I recognize other people are not as conscious as I am of that vulnerability but you asked about me, specifically.

                  If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

                  Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

      • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Wouldn’t you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

        You mean like your workplace wifi that you’re blowing the whistle at?