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.
rosco385@lemmy.wtf 1 month 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.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
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.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
It isn’t.
Natanael@infosec.pub 1 month ago
Timing of messages. They can’t tell what you send, but can tell when
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
No they can’t.
papertowels@mander.xyz 1 month ago
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.