• catalog3115
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    3 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    E2EE is not supposed to protect if device get compromised.

    • NegativeLookBehindEnglish
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      One could argue that Windows is compromised right out of the box.

        • Zpiritual
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago
          edit-2
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Microsoft are integrating adware and spyware straight into the os.

              • refalo
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                I don’t understand how that would prove anything.

                • far_university1990
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  A lot of tracker and spyware already mention in setup. And without bypass you cannot setup without microsoft account.

            • Zpiritual
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              3 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              It’s right there in the open. Install windows and you’ll see it. There is personalised ads in the start menu and the os is uploading your private files to the cloud automatically, taking screenshots and uploading them, etc. It’s not hidden whatsoever.

        • Vilian
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          source: 93% of ransomware are windows based

        • it_depends_manEnglish
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          “The computer” decides when to install updates and which ones to install.

    • potatopotato
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Intrinsically/semantically no but the expectation is that the texts are encrypted at rest and the keys are password and/or tpm+biometric protected. That’s just how this works at this point. Also that’s the government standard for literally everything from handheld devices to satellites (yes, actually).

      At this point one of the most likely threat vectors is someone just taking your shit. Things like border crossings, rubber stamped search warrants, cops raid your house because your roommate pissed them off, protests, needing to go home from work near a protest, on and on.

      • 9tr6gyp3
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 months ago
        edit-2
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        If your device is turned on and you are logged in, your data is no longer at rest.

        Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.

        If your device’s storage is not encrypted, and you don’t have any type of verified boot process, then thats on you, not Signal.

        • douglasg14b
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago
          edit-2
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          That’s not how this works.

          If the stored data from signal is encrypted and the keys are not protected than that is the security risk that can be mitigated using common tools that every operating system provides.

          You’re defending signal from a point of ignorance. This is a textbook risk just waiting for a series of latent failures to allow leaks or access to your “private” messages.

          There are many ways attackers can dump files without actually having privileged access to write to or read from memory. However, that’s a moot point as neither you nor I are capable of enumerating all potential attack vectors and risks. So instead of waiting for a known failure to happen because you are personally “confident” in your level of technological omnipotence, we should instead not be so blatantly arrogant and fill the hole waiting to be used.


          Also this is a common problem with framework provided solutions:

          https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage

          This is such a common problem that it has been abstracted into apis for most major desktop frameworks. And every major operating system provides a key ring like service for this purpose.

          Because this is a common hole in your security model.

          • 9tr6gyp3
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 months ago
            edit-2
            3 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

            • douglasg14b
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

              Damn reading literacy has gone downhill these days.

              Please reread my post.

              But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.

              1. OSs provide keyring features already
              2. The framework signal uses (electron) has a built in API for this EXACT NEED

              Cmon, you can do better than this, this is just embarrassing.

              • 9tr6gyp3
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                3 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                Why exactly am I re-reading your post? Im in complete agreement with you? Should I not be?

        • uis
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          3 months ago
          edit-2
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.

          True.

          and you don’t have any type of verified boot process

          How motherboard refusing to boot from another drive would protect anything?

          • 9tr6gyp3
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            3 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Its more about protecting your boot process from malware.

            • uis
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              3 months ago
              edit-2
              3 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Well, yes. By refusing to boot. It can’t prevent booting if motherboard is replaced.

              EDIT: s/do anything/prevent booting/

              • 9tr6gyp3
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                3 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                Thats correct. Thats one of the many perks.

                • uis
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  EDIT: s/do anything/prevent booting/

                  • 9tr6gyp3
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    If the hardware signatures don’t match, it wont boot without giving a warning. If the TPM/Secure Enclave is replaced/removed/modified, it will not boot without giving a warning.

      • Redjard
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        TPM isn’t all that reliable. You will have people upgrading their pc, or windows update updating their bios, or any number of other reasons reset their tpm keys, and currently nothing will happen. In effect people would see Signal completely break and loose all their data, often seemingly for no reason.

        Talking to windows or through it to the TPM also seems sketchy.

        In the current state of Windows, the sensible choice is to leave hardware-based encryption to the OS in the form of disk encryption, unfortunate as it is. The great number of people who loose data or have to recover their backup disk encryption key from their Microsoft account tells how easily that system is disturbed (And that Microsoft has the decryption keys for your encrypted date).

    • AlexWIWAEnglish
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago
      edit-2
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Mfw end to end can be compromised at the end.

      That said, they should fix this anyway

    • uis
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Indeed, End-to-End Encryption protects data between those ends, not ends themselves. If ends are compromised, no math will help you.

    • RealFknNitoEnglish
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Plaintext should never be used in any application that deals with security, ever.

      • Possibly linuxEnglish
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        3 months ago
        edit-2
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        It doesn’t use plain text. It is end to end encrypted but that isn’t what this “issue” is

      • Eager EagleEnglish
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        unless you’re reading ciphertext yourself, this doesn’t make sense