The Guardian and Cambridge University's Department of Computer Science unveil new secure technology to protect sources
Technology
59
Beiträge
22
Kommentatoren
2
Aufrufe
-
Timing of messages. They can't tell what you send, but can tell when
No 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.
Using an encrypted messaging app could itself be a red flag, using a news app is normal behavior.
-
Using an encrypted messaging app could itself be a red flag, using a news app is normal behavior.
It isn't.
-
Academic paper: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-999.pdf
The Guardian launches Secure Messaging, a world-first from a media organisation, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge
Secure Messaging is a new innovation for confidential story-sharing and source protection, underpinning the Guardian’s commitment to investigative journalism.
The Guardian has published the open source code for this important tech to enable adoption by other media organisations.the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
Similar to other apps, CoverDrop only provides limited protection on smartphones that are fully compromised by malware, e.g., Pegasus, which can record the screen content and user actions.
-
It isn't.
It'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.
Or 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...
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.
-
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...
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.
-
Or it's just a perfectly normal thing that billions of people do every day?
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
-
No they can't.
E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.
It'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.
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?
-
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
Use 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
It's called encryption
-
It's called encryption
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.
-
It's called encryption
I 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
Yeah this is insanely good
-
It's called encryption
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.
-
Academic paper: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-999.pdf
The Guardian launches Secure Messaging, a world-first from a media organisation, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge
Secure Messaging is a new innovation for confidential story-sharing and source protection, underpinning the Guardian’s commitment to investigative journalism.
The Guardian has published the open source code for this important tech to enable adoption by other media organisations.the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
The tech behind the tool conceals the fact that messaging is taking place at all. It makes the communication indistinguishable from data sent to and from the app by our millions of regular users.
Reminds me of how the Germans in WW1 knew they couldn't trust their diplomatic codes anymore so they just sent the important messages in the normal, innocuous telegraph system and diplomatic pouches. They knew that foreign intelligence would be focused on the bogus secure messages.
-
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.
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.
-
It isn't.
Criminalization of encryption : the 8 december case
This article was written on the basis of information related to the so-called "8 December" case (see the footnotes for a global overview of the case, we focus on the "numerical part" of it in this article
For a summary of the 8 December affair see in particular the testimonies available in thi 
La Quadrature du Net (www.laquadrature.net)
For France, Your a terroriste if you use signal
