Comment on The Guardian and the University of Cambridge Computer Science Department unveil new technology to protect journalists

Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I read it and don’t understand. Why is this better than Signal?

  source

  • rosco385@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Because analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal, but they could still tell you’re sendig a secure message.

    What the Guardian is doing is hiding that secure chat traffic inside the Guardian app, so packet sniffing would only show you’re accessing news.

    source

    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal

      How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted. And why does it matter if they know you’re sending a message? Literally everyone using Signal is sending a message.

      source

      • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Natanael@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Timing of messages. They can’t tell what you send, but can tell when

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • papertowels@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted

        Again, not my specialty, but signals end to end encryption is akin to sealing a letter. Nobody but the sender and the recipient can open that letter.

        But you still gotta send it through the mail. That’s the network traffic analysis that can be used.

        Here’s an example of why that could be bad.

        source
  • Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    For one, ease of access. Say you’re trying to break a story, who are you going to message with signal? Because you’re going to need to get that contact info somehow right?

    Snowden is permanently stranded in Russia. That’s not exactly a great example of an anonymous source.

    source

    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Say you’re trying to break a story, who are you going to message with signal?

      …The Guardian?

      Because you’re going to need to get that contact info somehow right?

      Use your browser? These are strange questions.

      Snowden is permanently stranded in Russia. That’s not exactly a great example of an anonymous source.

      Did you notice that I used the past tense?

      source
  • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Messaging protocols already resemble the frameworks that come out from time to time. And their effectiveness is due to the fact that they require a certain quota of users.

    It’s just a secure messaging app with a direct line to Guardian journalists. How to use 911 or special numbers when you’re not feeling well.

    source
• bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah this is insanely good

  source