• Ulrich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours 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.

    • papertowels@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

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

      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.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 minutes ago

            Then you’re a terrorist if you use the internet, period

            Nearly all internet traffic if encrypted, and for plain browser traffic it’s probably in the 95+%

            You access your bank? Terrorist! Email? Terrorist! Lemmy? Terrorist!

            • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 minutes ago

              I dunno, I am not the French state. I can only see that they think the usage of signal is making you a terrorist.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 minutes ago

                Sources for what, exactly? What is “fantasming”? The title of the article you posted is “Criminalization of encryption”. The Guardian is using encryption to send messages, so why would they be exempt? In fact, why would any internet use at all not be criminalized? It’s all encrypted.

                • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  38 seconds ago

                  So you read the title and you know everything. That the end for me. Have a great day.

        • eronth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It’s a red flag to those who think you’re going to share internal info.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Or it’s just a perfectly normal thing that billions of people do every day?

            • MynameisAllen@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Except that signal is blocked by many companies Mobile Device Management. The one that don’t can typically see who has the app installed. This provides a new clever way to maybe whistleblow

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                Use a different device? Use Molly? Use any number of other apps? What’s to stop the MDM from blocking The Guardian app?

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        No they can’t.

        E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.

            • Roughknite@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              26 minutes ago

              How dumb are you? Like someone said the point is they can see the fact that you sent a secured message period. Not with the guardian app though. Pretty easy to comprehend so I am confused why you are acting so stupid.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 minutes ago

                Like someone said the point is they can see the fact that you sent a secured message period. Not with the guardian app though.

                The entire point of the article in the OP is that you can send secured messages with The Guardian app. 🤦‍♂️

            • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Packet data has headers that can identify where it’s coming from and where it’s going to. The contents of the packet can be securely encrypted, but destination is not. So long as you know which IPs Signal’s servers use (which is public information), it’s trivial to know when a device is sending/receiving messages with Signal.

              This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing, it’s impossible to know the actual destination because that’s part of the encrypted payload that a different node will decrypt and forward.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                18 minutes ago

                Packet data has headers that can identify where it’s coming from and where it’s going to

                Wouldn’t you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

                This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing

                TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

                • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 minutes ago

                  Wouldn’t you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

                  You mean like your workplace wifi that you’re blowing the whistle at?

            • papertowels@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              How exactly do you think encryption prevents the analysis of seeing when an encrypted message is sent? It feels like you’re trying to hand-waive away by saying “encryption means you’re good!”

              Cyber security is not my thing, but my understanding is that you’d still see network traffic - you just wouldn’t know what it says.

            • Natanael@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I run a cryptography forum

              Encryption doesn’t hide data sizes unless you take extra steps