Comment on Why doesn't Signal forbid third party clients or at least offer a client certification program to ensure security?

AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Dot@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  There is already 2 third party forks I know of, molly and Signal-jw.

  They both use and access the main production Signal servers.

  source

  • Static_Rocket@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I could appreciate a client certification that is optional, like a list of approved clients on their website or something along those lines.

    It should not be enforced by killing the client. I like security, but I enjoy software freedom more.

    source
  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    As I said, a compromise here would be to have a client security certification program, where no other clients outside it would be able to use Signal.

    You mean running a trojan “as a mean of security”, similar to anticheats? Are you sure this is a good idea?

    Or if by “program” you mean having some allowed clients as opposite to only the official one allowed, it’s a social thing, not a technical one. So it still won’t prevent anyone from connecting with another client.

    source

    • Dot@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I mean having a list of allowed clients.

      As I said in my post, WhatsApp already enforce forbidding third party client and it seems to work well.

      I don’t see why wouldn’t Signal improve the security of their users by implementing this, while upsetting the very few users who use third party clients.

      source

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        How do you imagine this working?

        source
  • just_another_person@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It takes resources to run and maintain such things. Probably not something they feel they can or want to take on.

    source