Slashdot Mirror
Battle of the Secure Messaging Apps: Signal Triumphs Over WhatsApp, Allo (theintercept.com)
There is no shortage of messaging apps out there, so which one should you be using? If you care about your privacy, you would want your messaging client to be end-to-end encrypted. This narrows down the list to WhatsApp, Signal, and Allo. The Intercept has evaluated the apps to find which among the three is the best from the privacy standpoint. The publication says that while all the three aforementioned apps use the same secure messaging protocol (Open Whisper System's), they differ on exactly what information is encrypted, what metadata is collected, and what, precisely, is stored in the cloud.
WhatsApp:It's important to keep in mind that, even with the Signal protocol in place, WhatsApp's servers can still see messages that users send through the service. They can't see what's inside the messages, but they can see who is sending a message to whom and when.In addition, WhatsApp also retains your contact list -- provided you have shared it with the service. If government requests access to this data, WhatsApp could hand it over.
Allo:The first thing to understand about Google's forthcoming Allo app is that, by default, Google will be able to read all of your Allo messages. If you want end-to-end encryption via the Signal protocol, you need to switch to an "incognito mode" within the app, which will be secure but include fewer features. [...] Allo's machine learning features prevent Google from turning on end-to-end encryption for all messages, since Google needs to be able to ingest the content of messages for the machine learning to work, a Google spokesperson confirmed. Signal:The first thing that sets Signal apart from WhatsApp and Allo is that it is open source. The app's code is freely available for experts to inspect for flaws or back doors in its security. Another thing that makes Signal unique is its business model: There is none. In stark contrast to Facebook and Google, which make their money selling ads, Open Whisper Systems is entirely supported by grants and donations. With no advertising to target, the company intentionally stores as little user data as possible. Signal's privacy policy is short and concise. Unlike WhatsApp, Signal doesn't store any message metadata. [...] If you back up your phone to your Google or iCloud account, Signal doesn't include any of your messages in this backup.But what about Telegram, you ask? A Gizmodo report, also published on Wednesday, says that Telegram's default settings store your message on its unencrypted servers. "This is pretty much one of the worst things you could imagine when trying to send secure messages."
WhatsApp:It's important to keep in mind that, even with the Signal protocol in place, WhatsApp's servers can still see messages that users send through the service. They can't see what's inside the messages, but they can see who is sending a message to whom and when.In addition, WhatsApp also retains your contact list -- provided you have shared it with the service. If government requests access to this data, WhatsApp could hand it over.
Allo:The first thing to understand about Google's forthcoming Allo app is that, by default, Google will be able to read all of your Allo messages. If you want end-to-end encryption via the Signal protocol, you need to switch to an "incognito mode" within the app, which will be secure but include fewer features. [...] Allo's machine learning features prevent Google from turning on end-to-end encryption for all messages, since Google needs to be able to ingest the content of messages for the machine learning to work, a Google spokesperson confirmed. Signal:The first thing that sets Signal apart from WhatsApp and Allo is that it is open source. The app's code is freely available for experts to inspect for flaws or back doors in its security. Another thing that makes Signal unique is its business model: There is none. In stark contrast to Facebook and Google, which make their money selling ads, Open Whisper Systems is entirely supported by grants and donations. With no advertising to target, the company intentionally stores as little user data as possible. Signal's privacy policy is short and concise. Unlike WhatsApp, Signal doesn't store any message metadata. [...] If you back up your phone to your Google or iCloud account, Signal doesn't include any of your messages in this backup.But what about Telegram, you ask? A Gizmodo report, also published on Wednesday, says that Telegram's default settings store your message on its unencrypted servers. "This is pretty much one of the worst things you could imagine when trying to send secure messages."
Want a messaging app that is secure, get a peer-to-peer messaging app that does not depend on servers.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Seems that the last few sentences address the Telegram service.
But what about Telegram, you ask? A Gizmodo report, also published on Wednesday, says that Telegram's default settings store your message on its unencrypted servers. "This is pretty much one of the worst things you could imagine when trying to send secure messages."
and it's need to have a machine-learning built into it. It's going to be like that stupid Inbox stuff Google tried pulling a few years back, isn't it? I don't need something to create rules and read my email for me to sort it out. I can do both of those tasks just fine. Doing that doesn't save me effort or mental expense; just the opposite. If I had it turned on, I'd be worried it was screwing something up.
With Allo auto replying for me, I'd be very concerned it would be handing out information to people I didn't want to know certain things in my life. Even though Google is likely going to indemnify themselves in the click-thru, I can't wait for the first lawsuit from someone who was stalked and assaulted because Allo told said stalker where they were.
Encrypted end-to-end by default.
Rather curious how the best app for end-to-end security is missing - namely Telegram.
Telegram has 2 modes. Secure ("secret conversations") and
Default (essentially insecure; because messages are stored on their server)
The default trades features for security, namely that of of synchronization between all client devices, without regard for whether they are on or off or anything else at the time the message sent. Its a feature i value, and its a reason i use telegram.
But it IS at odds with security; and its something I'd like to see addressed. Although it would be a substantial rework of the protocol, and it would take a lot more storage space on the store and forward server since each message would need to be stored separately for each receiving device I think.
There has been some other criticisms of how telegram handles secret conversations (which are properly end to end encrypted -- and lose out on the sync to all devices as a result) but I've never gotten specifics on what the criticism is exactly or whether or not it is valid.
Seeing their source does not assure you of anything. You'd have to decompile the app you download from the store to know if it was bugged.
The one your friends and family use. What's the point of a secure messaging network if nobody you know uses it?
Wire is a rather nice messaging App that has end to end encryption. They don't advertise, or hold encryption keys. See here: https://wire.com/privacy/
It raises the question why they bothered to mention Allo then though, as it also has no encryption on by default.
..then you have already stopped obsessing with "apps" and are primarily concerned with protocols. Once you have decided on, say, XMPP plus OpenPGP extensions, then you have plenty of competing apps to chose from.
And of course, it follows that whatever protocol you use, will be "service-agnostic." Since you're going to pick something which uses a secure protocol, you basically don't care about servers; they're all commodities. Install jabberd or whatever at your Linode. Seriously: whatever.
I don't know how WhatsApp or Allo are even seriously considered. What do they speak? When people talk about the app more than the protocol, that's a bad sign. (e.g. I use the web and it's irrelevant whether I use it with Chromium or Firefox. The more you care about my specific browser, the more I think you're trying to talk me into not-using-the-web.)
n/t
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Whats the point of "secure" messaging in Whatsapp and Allo if the messages are not actually secure?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Try reading that summary again. Short summary it is not the best. It's worse than all the others.
> Want a messaging app that is secure, get a peer-to-peer messaging app that does not depend on servers.
And:
(1) Was not compiled by anyone else
(2) Does not depend on libraries compiled by anyone else
(3) Does not run on an operating system compiled by anyone else
(4) Does not run on hardware built by anyone else
(5) Is completely bug-free all the way down to the hardware
(6) Does not depend on unique identifiers like telephone number
(7) Only uses onion routing to prevent 3rd parties from building a social-graph of your contacts
(8) Does not draw attention to itself by using onion routing
(9) Does not require so much network activity that it drains your battery prevents you from communicating
(A) Is easy enough to use that your non-technical contacts can actually use it
(B) etc
Every choice in life is a trade-off. There is no such thing as perfect. You must prioritize what matters most to you.
But more broadly, anything the increases the cost of non-targeted "drag-net" style surveillance benefits all of us, even those of us who don't actually use the app.
"We commend Wickr for its strong stance regarding user rights, transparency, and privacy"
Wickr
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Use Wickr. It's very secure.
All messaging apps are replaced by open standards, and you have your choice of client.
Clearly the only "Safe" option is using telepathy.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
The Wickr instant messaging app allows users to exchange end-to-end encrypted and content-expiring messages, including photos, videos, and file attachments.The software is available for the iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, and Linux operating systems and is very secure.
iMessage is also end-to-end encrypted... and already has a huge install base.
C) Does not require you to remove your tinfoil hat to use it
I was all set to go whole-hog with the Signal Protocol, until I realized I could only use it on three of my devices. It's a hard-coded limit (cf. github) and there are no plans to change that, currently.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I am not sure if you are joking or not, but there really is a well-known IM library called like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
WhatsApp: You might have a chance of actually being able to communicate with someone you know - especially if you live in Brazil.
Allo: "The first thing to understand about Google's forthcoming Allo app..." - yeah, because Google Plus was such a hit.
Signal: The good news is, you can probably find all your Diaspora friends on this one.
Seriously... let's ignore all the ones that most people actually use, shall we?
#DeleteChrome
You clearly missunderstood your parent.
Want a messaging app that is secure, get a peer-to-peer messaging app that does not depend on servers.(7) Only uses onion routing to prevent 3rd parties from building a social-graph of your contacts
Onion routing requires nodes, aka servers.
As we are talking about phones which get basically dynamic IP adresses all the time, it is impossible to have such a service without a central server infrastructure that knows who is online and how he is reachable.
Of course such servers could be hosted by the crowd.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
None of the three are secure at all. The FBI/CIA use time logging as a default tracking failsafe mechanism.
To have private chat you will have to run a live cd of Tails on a cd or in a virtual machine from an .iso as a live cd.
The only good version is 1.4.1. It is what Ed Snowden used. Do not ask me how I know, especially on Slashdot.
I think it's stupid to talk about privacy and centralized services. Only federation can give use decent privacy level. Like XMPP. XMPP has e2e encryption (OMEMO, PGP, OTR). And serverless solutions like Tox. Although, it's still missing some important functionality. If you have a choice use decentralized services.
... which is strictly distributed and available as open source, see Ring official site or Ring on F-Droid. Unlike Signal, you can compile your own working Ring App from the sources.
https://threema.ch/en
Servers in Switzerland, Company has "bank status", open API, everything encrypted, anonymous ID.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
only if they are sacred cows, otherwise steak is for dinner
Wire has complete e2e--encryption and a full set of features missing in the other apps. (As well as all encryption bits being open source).
Simple comparison chart is here: https://wire.com/privacy/
Signal is great! Easy to use, secure, open source. What's not to love? The iPhone version sucks more than the Android version and there really isn't a desktop version yet. I really want a way to read and respond to Signal messages on my big keyboard and monitor.
And yes I know about the Chrome extension, I don't use close-sourced browsers.
Onion routing requires nodes, aka servers.
As we are talking about phones which get basically dynamic IP adresses all the time, it is impossible to have such a service without a central server infrastructure that knows who is online and how he is reachable.
That isn't true. Anytime you write "impossible", it should make you think twice.
Here's an example (I haven't used this, but I know this sort of thing is very feasible via Tor): https://github.com/prof7bit/To...
And best of all, the authentication of the key can be done out of band.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
[WhatsApp] can see who is sending a message to whom and when
Of course they do. How could they manage replies otherwise?
XMPP is an open standard supported by dozens of messaging applications on every platform in existence. I use "Conversations" which supports end-to-end encryption.
Who posted this article? It is truly uninformed.
Every choice in life is a trade-off. There is no such thing as perfect. You must prioritize what matters most to you.
A confounding factor in my case is that every clique I communicate with seems to have their own pet IM app, to the extent that I've got an entire subfolder in my phone dedicated to all the IM apps I need to run to communicate with them all. All taking up memory and resources when they poke around for new messages. What I want most is some sort of Trillian Mobile that unifies everything into one single app, not one app per user or group.
Also, is it just me or is Wickr on Android the least reliable IM app ever written, and that's including using carrier mackerel across the sahara? It loses messages, decides after an hour of sitting on them that they're now unsent, notifies for message arrivals but doesn't display them, suddenly sends out queues of weeks-old messages, etc etc. How can anyone write an app that bad?
It is mentioned, and it is certainly not the best. But there are missing messengers: from the large messengers, Viber and Line recently switched to e2e encryption. How well it is implemented remains open for debate of course.
Clearly the only "Safe" option is using telepathy.
And talk to those fucking mind-readers?
As far as I can tell, these apps all require a user to have a telephone number (Subscriber Identity Module). This is then used to ensure a securely authenticated connection.
Good in theory.
However in practice, I get a new number every few years (by choice even if I could keep my old number when signing a new contract). After 5 years on my current number, I still get accounts, calls, and other material (via SMS or MMS) intended for the previous owner of the number.
Also, in my country, some banks use the same channel for online banking security, and as a consequence "SIM cloning" is a well-known scam employed to empty out accounts.
While it may be harder or less worthwhile to crack the SIM part of the authentication protocol, I am by no means convinced that it is foolproof.
(Conceding that YMMV, I have a fairly cheap (+-20 USD equivalent per month) cellphone contract that includes X minutes and Y SMSes a month, which carry over, and which I have never used up in a month. So I'm quite happy to SMS people or even call them back. Friends often complain that I'm not on $CHAT_APP, but I do have an e-mail address, and you can get a free e-mail clients for every conceivable platform without requiring your telephone number (or address book!) - which is better than these chat apps do. You also use the exact same data channel to send and receive. I don't always have my data connection activated, but when I do, I get your message the same, whether it is a chat or and e-mail. Plus, if you require encryption, that can also be added on to e-mail in various ways without the need for a central server to handle it, it could be done peer to peer.
So I really don't get this chat app craze. Is it because it gives the power to grab someone's attention regardless of what he was doing, to now first answer your inane chatter? That's exactly why I disable the data except for certain times. If you want to save money on calls and SMSes, use good old ubiquitous, standardized and familiar e-mail, if you want to get hold of me quickly, just call or SMS as you did 5 years ago - the slight charge should serve as a (low) threshold just to ensure this is really that urgent, and that's exactly the point for me).
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
In this case we know something about how governments and other spies operate. I'm sure if the NSA or GCHQ really wants you data they will get it by some foul means, but for avoiding bulk surveillance and preventing your private communications entering the hands of law enforcement, local government, ISPs, consumer rights groups (see proposed UK Snoopers' Charter) etc. keeping your data off a third party server works really well.
In the UK the government is likely to require ISPs to log your traffic. It is therefore important to obfuscate it. Encryption, of course, but pipe it all down a VPN so that most metadata can't be observed either, and it is difficult to tell apart from other traffic. TOR goes even further with this obfuscation. Avoid having the data stored anywhere, even in encrypted form, because it will be vulnerable to demands by government agencies and you may be forced to decrypt it or go to jail.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Of course it is true:
TorChat is a peer to peer instant messenger with a completely decentralized design, built on top of Tor's location hidden services,
You need a Tor Service to find your peer. How else would you find a peer?
Reading the wiki helps: https://github.com/prof7bit/To...
On the other hand, we talked about Phones, where IP adresses change constantly (actually they use a different protocol for addressing), Tor is for "PCs" only.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Telegram is a good compromise for all my needs.
Not everything needs to be encrypted. If the gov't finds out that I told my friend that my kitty did the cutest thing with a tissue, who cares? If I need to give someone a password to an account I set up for them on a server, then I have the option to encrypt. It would be nice if Telegram switched to using Signal's protocol for encrypted communications, cause Signal appears to be the benchmark that all other protocols are compared to, and I know there have been issues expressed with Telegram's encryption protocol.
Other features that are important: Broad spectrum platform support. That means Windows, OSX, iOS, Android, Linux. That's ultimately what killed BBM. You *had* to have a Blackberry to use it. Once Blackberry started dying, everyone abandoned BBM as well. By the time Blackberry saw the light, it was too little, too late. IMO, Whats App went from being a childrens toy, to a seriously useful tool, the second they added desktop support.
Other critical feature: Sync history between clients. I have multiple desktops, a tablet, and a phone. The idea of not being able to switch from one to another and still continue my conversation is flat out idiotic in todays connected age. I prefer to type on an actual keyboard when I can, so if I'm in front of a desktop, I use the desktop to message with. But it's not unusual that I then have to go somewhere, but I don't want to abandon the conversation, so I switch to a mobile device. I *expect* my history to follow me so that I can continue where I left off.
Finally, it *has* to be easy. I would have loved to see XMPP become the defacto messaging protocol, cause it's just so powerful. But setting up an XMPP client is a PITA. Sure, *I* could set it up just fine, because I have the skill to do so. The average person doesn't, which guarantees that the overwhelming majority of people won't use it, which defeats the whole purpose of having a universal messaging protocol.
Whatsapp and Signal can probably (whatsapp is no open source) see the same amount of data. Whatsapp is honest and tells the user, what they possibly can see, signal doesn't do this that upfront.
Nothing against some actually secure apps (and one point you should not neglect is a trustworthy vendor, which doesn't push malicious updates to an app, which is secure at the moment), but check your facts. I think there was one messanger (app, programs there are some), which wanted to get rid of the metadata by using tor. I guess this sucks quite a bit of battery, though.
Would you please explain how to set this up?
I am one of those people who are swamped/flooded with stuff in my inbox. The 5 tabs was a good start, but it's hopelessly problematic for me -- not only does Google mis-catagorize stuff, but the classifications (social, mailing list+forums, promotions, personal notifications) doesn't match "important, scan, junk" for me.
And, something to let me categorize emails as a GTD-style sectioned to-do list? PLEASE, tell me how.