cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/71321898

Netzpoltik details that police are able to gain access in this way either through physical access to someone’s phone or by intercepting verification codes via a state-sanctioned phishing attack or intercepting SMS messages via telephone surveillance

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Interesting they highlight Signal again as though this is a vulnerability.

    If someone else has access to a linked device… that’s you fucking up access controls.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Signal failed to prevent soneone from accessing my unlocked phone and starting Signal! Everything was right there!

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      On iOS you can set an app to require additional credentials to open, to prevent this situation. I’d imagine Android had something similar. I did it for all my important apps, just in case. Don’t want someone able to access my bank account or nudes.

  • odama626@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    Signal in this was clickbait they literally just say oh well if someone can link in their device they can see 45 days of message history

    • yestalgia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      “Just get everyone in your life to move to ______ and that will solve all your problems”

      A suggestion as old as time

  • time2lose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Telegram and whatsapp never had encryption. Also - they just give your messages on law enforcement request, always have.

    Signal - how does it work with signal again?

    • FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

      Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Its also a failure of the user’s access control and operating security.

        Once a third party has access to the secure environment, that environment is and will always be compromised.

    • Brewchin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’ll never understand why people accept SMS 2FA as any kind of security. Might as well put it as an ad in a newspaper. 🤦🏻‍♂️

      • tumbling4986@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Because many services only have SMS as 2FA option. Especially government services.

        Also it is impossible to use google without enabling the SMS 2FA option. No matter what, with only 2FA authenticator app or email, they will lock down the account by saying “unable to verify”.

        • Yaky@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          46 minutes ago

          You can have a Google account without 2FA, but you need to create it using a factory-reset old Android phone (Android 8 or so).

        • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I never set a phone number on two of my google accounts and they still work fine. Those accounts are old. Google didn’t ask for a phone number to sign up back then.

          I recall seeing something about them planning to get rid of SMS 2FA last year. It looks like it’s still an option though.

          • Zarobi@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 minutes ago

            Watch out, if those accounts are ever “locked”, you will get permanently locked out of the accounts. Happened to me because a data breach revealed my email address and some idiot tried brute forcing my password. Didn’t work but it broke the account. Secondary recovery email address and correct password wasn’t good enough. Support basically told me to give up and make a new account (???).

  • There have been too many of these types of events related to signal. And it has so many red flags. You are required to have a phone number which is essentially ur real identity. They used to federate with 3rd party servers but they killed that and all but wiped it from the internet. They try to shut down 3rd party clients. They don’t provide reproducible builds so we can’t trust the source. They received their initial funding from In-Q-Tel the CIA venture capital firm.

    Every time someone tries to raise any of these issues they are immediately shut down and told that its all for a good reason and that we should trust it.

    At minimum they have a full social graph of real identities with time-stamped message events. Sealed sender doesn’t negate this as signal knows ur ip address when u give them a message. They also know the destination of that message as that isn’t sealed. This is sufficient information to link sender and recipient and timestamp. That’s assuming the unreproducible builds don’t have backdoors.

    It’s all got a slightly fishy smell to it.

    Tldr: If u want actual secure messaging u should consider SimpleX

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There are all of these stories about signal because it is notable when someone gets around it

      That there’s anything approaching secure communication on a cell-phone dominated Internet whose.operating systems are either “snobbish walled garden” or “ad agency living in the corpse of a search engine” is astonishing. In the same way that a gun safety that keeps a toddler from shooting themselves with an otherwise loaded gun is astonishing.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        can’t get around simplex encryption unless you have physical access to the device or have been physically invited by a member.