Slashdot Mirror


Five Alternatives To Snapchat

Nerval's Lobster writes "Snapchat isn't having the best 2014: less than a week after a cyber-security collective revealed an exploit that could allow hackers to swipe users' personal data from the messaging service, a couple hackers reportedly went right ahead and stole 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers, posting them as a downloadable database. It's easy to see why Snapchat's become so popular: the idea of messages that vaporize within a few seconds of opening holds a lot of appeal to not only the excessively paranoid, but also anyone who simply wants to keep their online footprint to a minimum. But as several security experts are pointing out, the idea of 'disappearing messages' was never a foolproof one. 'If you took a photo of your phone while the risky image was on screen, or took a screenshot, or dumped your phone's graphics RAM, or used basic forensic data recovery techniques to retrieve the "deleted" files after viewing them, or fetched the image through a session-logging web proxy,' Phil Ducklin wrote in a Jan. 1 posting on the Naked Security Website, 'then you'd quickly have realised that Snapchat's promises of "disappearing images" were fanciful.' For those who no longer trust Snapchat, but want that same vaporizing-message functionality, some alternatives exist, including Silent Circle (which offers a messaging app, for a subscription fee, that forces messages to self-destruct after a set period of time) and Wickr (features military-grade encryption — AES256, ECDH521, RSA4096, TLS — and the app-builders claim they don't have the keys to decrypt; messages vaporize after a set time)."

58 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder if this will affect their valuation by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps they should have taken the $3B offer from Facebook (or the alleged $4B from Google) when they had the chance. Especially since people have endless opportunities to abandon services like Snapchat for the Next Cool Thing anyway.

     

    1. Re:I wonder if this will affect their valuation by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I've audited valuation reports for used for the acquisitions of tech start-ups on behalf of a few companies. They're typically huge documents 100-200 pages long looking at historical trends, economic factors, strategy & expectations, market comparables, user base, tangle and intangible assets, if applicable, DCFs and the variables factored into that calc, revenue and opex trends/forecasting, evaluation of prior year forecasts vs. actuals. etc. etc. Lots of stuff.

      But when it comes down to it, all of the calculations that really swing the valuations are all based on assumptions and judgementally selected variables. I can't prove they're doing it, but it's simple for these valuation consultants to just pick out a number and then just tweak assumptions and valuations until the calculations land on the number they wanted.

      It's such a judgemental subject that the auditors can rarely call them out for having blown the valuation unless they're basing the calculations on things that are plainly and factually wrong, the assumptions need to be wildly outlandish to be seriously fought over by auditors, because the auditors argument would also have to be based on assumptions the auditors have chosen. It'd be an argument based on subjective opinion and since the auditors are being paid by the company they're auditing, the auditors only want to push on subjective matters when it's so outrageous the risk of a lawsuit outweighs the benefit of collecting audit fees from that company.

  2. What about... pgp/gpg? by mlts · · Score: 1

    What about using PGP/gpg, setting up a web of trust, sending the encrypted data via whatever messaging protocol one wants, and not depending on someone else's word that they will destroy data on an expiration date?

    Yes, having a promise that a photo will go poof is nice, but this assumes that the client-side DRM is working, and this may not be the case... so might as well just give up pretenses and use something time tested.

    Yes, web of trusts take some time to build, but it is more secure than trusting a third party to do all the work.

    1. Re:What about... pgp/gpg? by N1AK · · Score: 2

      All well and good, however from what I've seen so far 99.9% of the issue with things on snap chat being shared beyond the senders intent are where the recipient saves a copy. If you present the data to a user un-encoded at any point, barring you being able to restrict the device they are using (and even then if they have a camera), then they will still be able to do that.

  3. Fundamentally Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And what if I take a picture of my phone while the image is displayed? You have to face the truth: Self-destructing messages are a type of DRM, which can always be defeated.

    It's best to use encrypting free and open source software, and only send data to friends whom you can trust to disable logging. OTR messaging does this, and has many FOSS implementations. The proprietary programs from TFA can't guarantee security, because the source code can't be examined.

  4. vaporize? by trybywrench · · Score: 2

    So does your phone steadily run out of RAM as the chips are incinerated? ...I didn't know the batteries were that powerful either, I'm so far behind the times.

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  5. I can't see much use for them.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Funny

    then again, I don't have a body that too many people are interested in seeing in a state of undress, or a burning desire to show it to other people.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:I can't see much use for them.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, you can always cause yourself some interesting lesions and then admit yourself to a teaching hospital.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:I can't see much use for them.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that if the lesions were that interesting, they'd prefer hi-res images that they could use as reference for future students...

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    3. Re:I can't see much use for them.. by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      then again, I don't have a body that too many people are interested in seeing in a state of undress

      Neither did Anthony Weiner. Didn't stop him.

  6. Sorry, correction . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    Let's be fair, an "excessively paranoid" person wouldn't trust a free service, they'd roll their own. Second, honestly, why on earth would anyone think that any free service is unexploitable? What example do we have of a free service that's been reliable in terms of privacy and security? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one.

    1. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Truecrypt.

      Paying for something is not an implicit guarantee of quality. In point of fact we use Wickr at home for casual level messaging. Why? The guys behind it are known in the infosec community and therefore have a reputational stake in not doing dumb things. Additionally it has survived an audit by forensics professionals where snapchat failed:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwW9g_SQn9Y

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    2. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

      Well, no, we're not talking about paying for something, we're talking about using a free service. Both may be innadequate.

    3. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      if by free you mean "free and open source", they're not "unexploitable". The only thing that is IMHO guarateed is the chances for a quick fix in the case of an exploit are higher!

    4. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

      No, I mean "free" as in "you didn't pay anything, so what do you expect?"

    5. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      oh, well, free has nothing to do with it.
      But I see and agree with what you're saying!

    6. Re:Sorry, correction . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I must disagree. When you don't pay for something, the person giving it to you doesn't have much of an obligation or incentive. That isn't to say that people who get paid directly for a service will do it properly, but if you don't pay for a service directly and your information is being used to support the system financially through ads, then the relationship between your information and its monetization is what's important. It's baffling that someone would look at the exploits and breaches on so many of these "free" sites that happened in 2013 and be appalled that their information wasn't being secured properly.

  7. Re:Ok, I'll bite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Read the summary before posting and you will know that they don't try to stop that. They don't even stop screenshots directly from the device (although on many phones they will notify the sender that such a screenshot was taken). SnatchChat's Raison d'être (I am sure /. will make that look stupid because they don't handle unicode - it meant "reason for existence) is sexting. It is for the Anthony Weiner's of the world. Folks that either don't care that there are ways around the auto destruction of the photo or aren't bright enough to figure it out.

  8. PC equivalent? by Tridus · · Score: 1

    Is there a good PC version of any of these? It seems odd that they're phone-only, messaging on the computer is still very much a thing.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:PC equivalent? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Any PC version would be easily susceptible to the print screen button. At least on Android (earlier versions anyway, not sure about new ones) they made it extremely difficult to get a screenshot, even if the phone was rooted. I can understand why they wouldn't want apps collecting screenshots, but as a general system function, I can't see how it's survived so long without being there.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:PC equivalent? by deconfliction · · Score: 2

      Is there a good PC version of any of these? It seems odd that they're phone-only, messaging on the computer is still very much a thing.

      People who are advanced enough to use a keyboard interface to a computing device are smart enough to know the entire premise for the product is a fraud.

    3. Re:PC equivalent? by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      on android, as far as I can remember (but I've never used official images, cyanogenmod or equivalent), vol- / power was the combination to take a screen shot

  9. DRM by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    Snapchat and it's ilk is a kind of DRM. As such it will never really work.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:DRM by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      on the other hand of the person trust the person you're sending the image to, you can assume safely that they wont keep it. By that an ecrypted *insert any trasport medium* would be enough as you know for a fact (since the receiving party is a trusted one) the pic/msg will be deleted!
      services like snapchat will just induce false sense of security (for those who don't understant what you said), and eliminate the only requirement needed which is trust in the persone receiving the data!

  10. I can think of one alternative. by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    Don't take or post pictures you don't want to be seen by others.
    It would be nice to beat people who bring cameras or take out their phone on a Stag do.

  11. 5 alternatives to Slashdot? :-O by hodet · · Score: 1

    Woops I read that wrong.

  12. Oh, no! by Lisandro · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not Snapchat!

  13. "Military-Grade" Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please stop saying this, it just sounds stupid.

    1. Re:"Military-Grade" Encryption by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Please stop saying this, it just sounds stupid.

      Especially when you think of FIPS... the Military uses it. Therefore Dual_EC_DRBG can be part of Military-Grade encryption.

  14. Re:Greed knows no bounds by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Maybe because I am struggling paying student loans and keeping expenses down like 60% of Americans, but if I were offered $1,000,000,000 for a company that makes more no money I would fucking take it!

    If my other 2 partners got greedy and think they are the next Bill Gates and deserve to the be the top richest people for providing no value then I would have sold my share to Zuckerberg and told the other 2 partners to bite me or pay me the $1,000,000,000 themselves!

    I mean come on what is so freaking innovative about a chat client written in java that can be done by any freshmen level CS student with pics that vanish after a timer?! ... and if I were retarded enough to be an investor you bet your ass I would sue the hell out of all of the partners for $3,000,000,000 or try to recoup my money back. They did not have the shareholder interests at heart either.

  15. #6 - dont use it by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Or don't use it. Are you better off with or without it?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  16. Disappearing data can't work by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary presents Silent Circle's subscription service as an alternative that accomplishes what Snapchat doesn't, but that's crap. Nearly all of the listed ways of preserving Snapchat messages will work with Silent Circle... and anything else that tries to do the same thing. Oh, I have no doubt that the Silent Circle app is a lot better at protecting your data in transit, and I'm sure it reduces message access to key access, so once you can verify that the keys are gone, the contents are effectively gone, but those keys are still vulnerable to all sorts of device hacks. They have to be.

    I have hopes that in the future we may be able to embed secure key management hardware in devices, which will make this kind of stuff a lot harder to defeat, but ultimately nothing will ever be able to make sure that digital data actually goes away. DRM -- which is what this is, just in a slightly different form and for a different purpose -- doesn't work, and can never work, not in an absolute sense.

    This isn't to say that Snapchat's disappearing messages aren't good enough for many purposes, and that Silent Circle's implementation isn't adequate for even more (assuming the people you want to talk to also have it), but anyone who thinks that they can send digital photos of their genitals to their friends, confident that only the recipient will ever see them, is simply mistaken. And anyone who wants to use ephemeral messaging for any more important purpose is a fool.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Disappearing data can't work by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I have hopes that in the future we may be able to embed secure key management hardware in devices, which will make this kind of stuff a lot harder to defeat, but ultimately nothing will ever be able to make sure that digital data actually goes away. DRM -- which is what this is, just in a slightly different form and for a different purpose -- doesn't work, and can never work, not in an absolute sense.

      Given the latter, why have hope for the former?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Disappearing data can't work by swillden · · Score: 2

      I have hopes that in the future we may be able to embed secure key management hardware in devices, which will make this kind of stuff a lot harder to defeat, but ultimately nothing will ever be able to make sure that digital data actually goes away. DRM -- which is what this is, just in a slightly different form and for a different purpose -- doesn't work, and can never work, not in an absolute sense.

      Given the latter, why have hope for the former?

      Because "can't work in an absolute sense" isn't the same as "isn't useful". And having stronger key management will extend the range of utility by reducing the avenues of attack and increasing the scope of threat models under which it's secure.

      Of course, this still leaves open the problem of how to get people to understand the practical limits of the technology.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Disappearing data can't work by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      local vs global : ex (may be not usefull bu illustrate the concept) a mobius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip) strip is locally orientable (take any open peice of it, and it has an orientation), but not globally (the whole surface can not have an orientation).

  17. the app-builders claim they don't have the keys... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Yeah yeah, pull the other one. A quick national security letter telling them to log everything will take care of that issue, and who's gonna know? We will never have privacy. The only solution is to make sure the authorities don't have any either.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. Re:Greed knows no bounds by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with how innovative the product is - even though it did bring something that no other apps did at the time, what matters is that it had many users. That's all that counts.

  19. Re:Greed knows no bounds by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with how innovative the product is - even though it did bring something that no other apps did at the time, what matters is that it had many users. That's all that counts.

    Well call me old fashioned, but what matters to me is money. It is a corporation after all.

    Users do not mean jack if it does not bring in money. So yes these guys were idiots and blinded by greed and did the shareholders (assuming they had outside investors and help) not only a disservice but broke the law by not selling.

    So if I were one of the 3 partners I would have sold out and pains like the security issue show its age. It is new and doesn't have an IT department more than a few people. It also shows how naive they are in the fact that there are many SQL and No-SQL databases to use that are mature, tested, have huge apis, and most importantly get regular security updates.

    Perhaps I am bitter I was not offered billions so do not discard that part :-)

  20. WICKR! by grub · · Score: 1


    Wickr works amazingly well.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  21. Taking a picture of your phone by kruach+aum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None of the alternatives, no matter how technologically sophisticated (within the bounds of current smartphone technology) can protect against a picture of the screen being taken with a second device.

    1. Re:Taking a picture of your phone by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      Or a good artist with a decent memory creating a realistic rendition with oil on canvas, pencil on paper, or perhaps even a grid of castles in the sand. I'm beginning to think Snapchat is a Psy-Op by the CIA to convince people like me that the rest of the population really is so stupid they deserve to be treated as pets of the state. It's like that first episode of the first (or fifth?) season of 'The Wire' where they convince the low level criminal that a xerox machine is a lie detector to provoke a confession. Snapchat is the cop's new xerox machine.

    2. Re:Taking a picture of your phone by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Exactly, it's still trivially easy but it's more about intent and premeditation. It's more like the logic of a cooldown period for gun purchase, you shouldn't be able to go directly from getting fired down to the gun store, buy a gun and go postal. Same way you can't go nuts with SnapChat pictures you never saved and if you did it proves you planned to keep those pictures against your partner's will and you went to great lengths to be deceptive about it - there is really no other reason to avoid the standard screenshot which will notify the sender. So many will be unable to leak the photos, the rest will be punished harder because they've prepared to share the photos.

      Also, people are lazy. If I want to send someone a photo and delete it after they've seen it (in case the phone gets lost, stolen, hacked, sold, whatever) I have to rely on the recipient to actively do it. I'm sure you all know 90%+ never change their defaults. SnapChat flips that default around, unless the recipient has done something very particular in order to keep it the default is that it will be deleted. It's a pretty big friendly hint that hey look at this it's cool, but you don't want Facebook to have a huge dossier on you. When it comes to social media you really should compare it to the alternatives...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Misunderstanding the Point of Snapchat by ASpotySpot · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a fairly heavy user of snapchat I see all these comments about it failing due to poor security just plain wrong. Almost no-one uses it for the security. Its about the lack of cost if the picture is 'wrong' or poor. Sending selife's or pictures of what's happening in your day is a nice way to keep in touch with someone. It feels more personal than text or voice and is much easier to do. Who cares if its a bad picture or a little boring, its gone in 10 seconds. Maybe some have a usecase for high security (nude pictures etc) but that isn't the largest market, or at least in my experience.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding the Point of Snapchat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/child-porn-charges-laid-against-10-laval-teens-1.2426599 "Child porn charges laid against 10 Laval teens Police allege boys traded screen grabs of girlfriends' explicit Snapchat photos ..."

    2. Re:Misunderstanding the Point of Snapchat by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But if you are not in high school then how do you manage to find a second person you know who is using snapchat?

    3. Re:Misunderstanding the Point of Snapchat by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      You're asking a lot from a High Schooler.

  23. Re:Greed knows no bounds by QilessQi · · Score: 1

    Yes. The value of Snapchat isn't the app itself -- the app and its server-side infrastructure could be replicated in a matter of weeks by Facebook engineers. The value of Snapchat was and is entirely its current user base. If you're Facebook and you can suddenly acquire millions of non-Facebook users (or tether existing users more tightly to Facebook) then you have millions of more opportunities to sell ads, and to sell user metadata to whoever.

    But once the bubble pops and the users go elsewhere, Snapchat goes the way of... um... well, any company I can't remember the name of because they've gone the way that Snapchat will go. If you know what I mean.
     

  24. And how are the alternatives any more secure? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    you'd quickly have realised that Snapchat's promises of "disappearing images" were fanciful.' For those who no longer trust Snapchat, but want that same vaporizing-message functionality, some alternatives exist

    Great. And how do those alternatives stop any of the work-arounds mentioned in the summary?

    Or did you mean "alternatives which are just as bad"?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  25. Re:Ok, I'll bite... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    How about...not sending pics out on the internet or over phone lines/cell towers, that you'd not want the majority of people to see??

    How hard is that? When did people lose common sense???

    If you value your privacy at all...don't join up to FB and other "social networks". And if you actually MUST join them...don't share personal shit you don't want getting out to the general public. It is a simple litmus test...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  26. Snapchat by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Security is like a 2 inch steel door with an unbreakable lock.

    I know that a plasma thingie would cut right through it, but I lock my frontdoor nonetheless and I sleep well.

    Security has to be just good enough. It will never be perfect.

  27. Damned missing options! by PPH · · Score: 1

    How about:

    6) None of the above.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Damned missing options! by quenda · · Score: 1

      7) Go back to flashing random strangers in the local park.

  28. Video/Music Streaming by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    The same promises were made for Video/Music streaming. In that it is off site, and supposedly used as DRM. However it is bs. There are certain clever ways to go about it. However Once you have it on your machine, you can do all sorts of stuff to it to then save it as something else. This has been done time and again.

    Most people probably wouldn't know how to do it, even with snap chat. But all it takes is someone to build a application that does it for you, then you can just use that.

    Taking a screen shot of your device for example while using snap chat would seem to be the easiest and most trivial solution. Not having used snap chat maybe it has a way to disable your phones ability to take a screen shot...

    Anyway the protection is an illusion. It is better than nothing, but it probably isn't all that secure to begin with.

    1. Re:Video/Music Streaming by neminem · · Score: 1

      I haven't used it either. It might have the ability to disable taking a screenshot on your phone. It most certainly doesn't have the ability to disable taking a picture of your phone from another physical device, because that would be impossible.

  29. Re:silent circle encrypts the messages on the devi by swillden · · Score: 1

    Go back and read the list of attacks against Snapchat. Silent Circle is still subject to screen shot attacks, device malware attacks, device graphics RAM dumping attacks, etc. It probably isn't subject to retrieval of deleted messages, and really shouldn't be subject to grabbing of messages through a session-logging proxy. But that's my point... though it's vulnerable to fewer attacks because, it's still vulnerable.

    BTW, I'm a guy who builds systems with real crypto, and who knows real crypto. I respect the Silent Circle authors, and have every reason to believe they're doing the best job that can be done. But the best job that can be done is far from perfect due to other limitations.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  30. *Paul* Ducklin by xorsyst · · Score: 1

    Come on slashdot, get the guy's name right.

    --
    Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
  31. Bullshit by allo · · Score: 1

    You cannot send someone an image, which can be displayed by the user and prevent the user from saving it.

  32. We burned the sky... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate DRM. This is how the machine wars began...

    Android has detected you are trying to violate DRM using another device. Accessing device... shutting down... countermeasures launched...