The Guardian and Cambridge University's Department of Computer Science unveil new secure technology to protect sources
-
I read it and don't understand. Why is this better than Signal? Or the 500 other secure file/messaging protocols?
Jabber seemed to work perfectly for Snowden...
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:02 zuletzt editiert vonBecause 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.
-
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.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:10 zuletzt editiert von deathbybigsad@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creator
-
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.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:22 zuletzt editiert vonanalysing 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.
-
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.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:26 zuletzt editiert vonTiming of messages. They can't tell what you send, but can tell when
-
Timing of messages. They can't tell what you send, but can tell when
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:28 zuletzt editiert von ulrich@feddit.orgNo they can't.
E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.
-
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.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:47 zuletzt editiert von deathbybigsad@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creator
-
deleted by creator
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 04:52 zuletzt editiert vonIt isn't.
-
Academic paper: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-999.pdf
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 06:11 zuletzt editiert von -
It isn't.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 06:35 zuletzt editiert vonIt's a red flag to those who think you're going to share internal info.
-
It's a red flag to those who think you're going to share internal info.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 06:45 zuletzt editiert vonOr it's just a perfectly normal thing that billions of people do every day?
-
I read it and don't understand. Why is this better than Signal? Or the 500 other secure file/messaging protocols?
Jabber seemed to work perfectly for Snowden...
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 07:20 zuletzt editiert vonMessaging 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.
-
I read it and don't understand. Why is this better than Signal? Or the 500 other secure file/messaging protocols?
Jabber seemed to work perfectly for Snowden...
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 10:40 zuletzt editiert vonFor 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.
-
Or it's just a perfectly normal thing that billions of people do every day?
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 11:03 zuletzt editiert vonExcept 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
-
No they can't.
E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 13:46 zuletzt editiert vonIt's called traffic analysis
-
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.
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 14:56 zuletzt editiert vonSay 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?
-
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
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 14:58 zuletzt editiert von ulrich@feddit.orgUse a different device? Use Molly? Use any number of other apps? What's to stop the MDM from blocking The Guardian app?
-
It's called traffic analysis
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 14:58 zuletzt editiert vonIt's called encryption
-
It's called encryption
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 15:26 zuletzt editiert vonPacket 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.
-
It's called encryption
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 15:31 zuletzt editiert vonI run a cryptography forum
Encryption doesn't hide data sizes unless you take extra steps
-
I saw the headline and was ready to rage about why they should just use signal instead. Then I read the article and honestly this is a fucking genius use of tech
schrieb am 24. Juni 2025, 15:32 zuletzt editiert vonYeah this is insanely good
-
-
-
Healthcare Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Market Opportunities: Growth, Share, Value, Size, and Scope
Technology64 vor 8 Tagenvor 8 Tagen2
-
Half of today’s jobs could vanish—Here’s how smart countries are future-proofing workers
Technology 5. Juli 2025, 13:411
-
-
Want a humanoid, open source robot for just $3,000? Hugging Face is on it.
Technology 31. Mai 2025, 11:201
-
Why does digital violence against LGBTI people in Thailand and Taiwan continue even after marriage equality?
Technology 16. Mai 2025, 08:151
-