I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.
Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?
It’s focused on ensuring there is no middleman between you and the other party, but it does not have a goal to provide anonymous messaging. Sadly.
no middleman
Signal is not P2P
Of course. Sorry, but I meant no middleman as in minifying the role of the server in your messahing. Signal’s goal is to ensure the server cannot have access to your messages and its only role is to receive and send data.
No but it’s e2ee.
deleted by creator
End-to-end encryption have been designed so that a “middleman” such as Signal can’t read your conversation. Signal goes even further by encrypting metadata protecting other information such as who you’re talking too and at what time (some technical and targeted attack could however determined these).
In asymetrical cryptography we tend to assume that what we call middleman is a third-party placed between the two peers during the public key exchanges (such as handshake). Signal is indeed a middleman on the infrastructure level but the software has been designed to protect you from middlemen having access to the raw, unencrypted data.
That say if you don’t verify your peer’s public key it’s not impossible that someone has done a man-in-the-middle attack and that you’re sending message to him and he’s rerouting them to your peer, etc… However this is unrealistic for the average person.
So even if it’s not a p2p infrastructure but some centralized servers we can assume that there is no middleman thanks to e2ee.
You can’t just write three paragraphs (that contain half-truth, half-misinformation) about how Signal is the middleman and then conclude “you can assume there’s no middleman”. You can’t assume that. Signal is the middleman. There’s no arguments to be made against this. Signal doesn’t claim they aren’t the middleman either.
Do you know that using most P2P messenger you still rely on multiple ISP and big tech owned communication wire in order for your message to get delivered, even if there is no central server ?
What’s your point?
I am referring at man-in-the-middle attacks
Signal IS the middleman.
Everything is a balancing act. Privacy, anonymity, and security aren’t the same things. They’re sometimes, and in some aspects always, difficult to achieve without compromising one of the other two.
When you add in the goal of quick, easy setup to make the service useful in the first place. Doesn’t matter how good the service is at the trinity if nobody is willing to use it. Signal just errs on security first, privacy second, anonymity third.
Offers the same privacy but is not centralised. it’s peer to peer
But like TOR, can entry / exit nodes be used to tie the two ends together through e.g. timing attacks?
Has any app fixed this?
I fogot it doea that.
It’s private but it’s not anonymous. they know who is talking to who, but not what they are talking about.
That’s not exactly true. See Sealed sender: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
I think it’s important to remember de difference between being private and being anonymous. Signal IS private. It’s not anonymous. The same is true for many other apps/services.
Personally I like to be private. I don’t really need to be anonymous.
Because they’re building a private, not anonymous, instant messenger. They’ve been very open about this.
Our phone numbers are not private from them.
Despite this, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
Nothing “derailing” us. Not everyone has the same threat model. The messages are private and that’s what’s most important. Signal can only provide phone number and last connection time to the feds. If that’s too much information for you, then you’re not the target group and have a different threat model.
The messages are private and that’s what’s most important.
No, that isn’t true. WhatsApp has the same lies. Law enforcement connect communication between users at key times and use it as credible evidence. Why would drug exporter 1 be communicating with drug buyer 1 at the exact time the delivery arrives in the country? Law enforcement doesn’t need to know what was written.
What are you talking about? Are you saying sealed sender is a lie? If so, I want some proof.
Reduce spam bot accounts and other malware, as well as to allow for user discovery so you can find your contacts more easily. It’s not designed to be an anonymous service, just a private one.
It’s not designed to be an anonymous service, just a private one.
I think this needs to be said a lot more often and a lot louder. Anonymous and private are NOT necessarily the same thing, nor should the expectation be that they are. Both have a purpose.
Signal is not perfect but we control its app, libre software. See SimpleX Chat.
Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
Bots. If it makes you feel better, you can disable other people finding you via phone number and just give them your username. All messages are private.
But the police request the meta data of all messages from your phone number that the company has and they’re required by law to give them it.
They can “request” it all day long. Signal doesn’t store them beyond the time needed to deliver to the end user device, and while (temporarily) stored, it’s encrypted in a way Signal’s service cannot read.
The phone carrier at least here in the US is required to store the call data for 18 months, according to the one that I use.
What does that have to do with Signal?
The claim is that Signal’s phone verification step doesn’t cause privacy problems because Signal (purportedly) doesn’t retain the phone numbers after verification. That claim is falsified because the phone carrier stores the call record even if Signal doesn’t. They store it because of the same law that makes them turn it over to Big Brother on demand. The phone verification step is, therefore, a privacy problem. Obviously there are similar issues with IP routing, but at least I can use a VPN with an endpoint in another country.
No, that wasn’t the claim. Phone numbers are used for sign up, but the post’s OP was talking about messaging meta data. Messaging meta data doesn’t go through your carrier and is encrypted.
If you check the publication of signal’s cases where they had to hand out data, and in reverse the FBI leak that listed analysis of all messenger apps by what data they were able to acquire in most cases, Signal came out as one of the top options.
Oh I see what you mean. But a big enough data dump from the phone carriers identifies all of Signal’s users, not good.
The “record” is a SMS verification code. All that will tell the government is that you registered for Signal, nothing else.
Telling the govt that you registered for Signal sounds like a bad failure as far as I’m concerned, e.g. if you are a user in a repressive regime. Do you think Trump would like to get his hands on a list of all the Signal users in the US? Probably yes. What would he do with the list? IDK but it has to be bad. So it should be an objective of Signal to make it impossible for anyone to create such a list.
Anyway, it sounds like Signal has wised up and is getting rid of the phone number requirement. I don’t understand why people here keep defending the misfeature. I’ve heard such things explained as “system justification” but I still don’t understand it. All of us make poor decisions all the time, but we should at least make some effort to recognize them, and fix them when possible.
huh? so the phone number is encrypted in a way that can’t be read, but an sms is sent to the phone? … a separate company sends the text on behalf of signal? so that separate company logs the phone number, the timestamp and who knows what else.
What are you on about right now? I don’t mean that sarcastically, I really am wondering what your concern is. Are you concerned that because your phone number is associated with Signal that police will know you use Signal?
Signal doesn’t use SMS at all, once you have enrolled. The phone number is used to validate people and exclude bots, during registration. As others have noted, you can hide your number from other users, as well.
These are all the court orders Signal has complied to and details all the information they give up
https://signal.org/bigbrother/
TLDR; they only give the last time the account connected to Signal servers and the time of account registration or re-registration
You should go properly read the requests from law enforcement they have received and exactly what information it contains. It’s public. Then evaluate if it matters for yur threat model. Security doesn’t exist in a vaccum.
Its encrypted
Messages are e2e encrypted. Metadata is not encrypted.
Edit: I feel the need to qualify this statement. Metadata about your connection may be encrypted at rest but is decryptable given that signal is released metadata to authorities with a warrant/subpoena.
Yes it is. Signal isnt PGP email. A lot of work went into protecting metadata.
People told you a few times to go look for yourself what Signal can give away. Its protocol descriptions are pretty understandable.
The whole bloody reason it’s always recommended is because it’s absolutely the best thing in terms of yes, encrypting metadata. It’s state of the art, level above that bullshit you’re thinking.
Unfortunately, that also means that hosting it takes lots of resources, which means they have to screen bots and mults somehow. Phone numbers are one way. Paid accounts are another.
Phone numbers are one way. Paid accounts are another.
Rubbish. How would this stop bots? Bots are created to make money. What makes you think creators don’t have a phone number, or be prepared to pay to spam.
One account per phone number versus infinity of accounts without.
signal accounts… signal accounts everywhere!
what? can you show a source? I think you mixed it up with Matrix
-
Yes, and in that time you would visit a website with your own IP address likely, likely over HTTP without SSL/TLS, likely with your vulnerable browser fingerprint. Point?
-
Privacy, not anonymity. Two completely different things.
-
Because the way Signal is built hosting it requires a lot of resources (storage especially), so they want spam prevention and fewer accounts per person.
- yawn, vpns are a thing and strawman argument. point?
- my number is private. point?
- bs. spam is easy to detect across a large number of accounts using simpleheuristics. point?
- they were talking of something like year 2003, when they were commonly not.
- no, PSTN is not private.
- for something end-to-end encrypted, including message metadata (not connection metadata), this statement seems amazingly stupid ; “simple heuristics” are usually used on something like plaintext e-mail.
- no they weren’t. no moving of goalposts
- what’s my number then?
- amazingly not stupid. dunning kruger and all that.
- People were complaining about JS existing when SSL and TLS were not omniscious. If we disagree on that fact, move on.
- A sequence of digits.
- OK, what are your “simple heuristics” for a bunch of pieces of ciphertext with unknown sender (except for IP addresses) in your storage to pick spammers from that?
-
I haven’t seen a non-TLS website in years.
-
Your asserting “two completely different things” doesn’t make it true. Privacy and anonymity are not synonyms but they are overlapping areas. Also ISTM you are redefining terms to suit your purposes. Anonymity to me means the message recipient can’t tell who you are. If a THIRD PARTY (the server operator) can ALSO tell who you are, that’s a privacy failure, not just an anonymity one.
-
Why does it take so much storage per user? Does it have video uploads or anything like that? A user account should basically just be a row in a database.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) :
In August 2022, Signal notified 1900 users that their data had been affected by the Twilio breach including user phone numbers and SMS verification codes.[105] At least one journalist had his account re-registered to a device he did not control as a result of the attack.[106] …
This mandatory connection to a telephone number (a feature Signal shares with WhatsApp, KakaoTalk, and others) has been criticized as a “major issue” for privacy-conscious users who are not comfortable with giving out their private number.[142] A workaround is to use a secondary phone number.[142] The ability to choose a public, changeable username instead of sharing one’s phone number was a widely-requested feature.[142][144][145] This feature was added to the beta version of Signal in February 2024.[146]
Using phone numbers as identifiers may also create security risks that arise from the possibility of an attacker taking over a phone number.[142] A similar vulnerability was used to attack at least one user in August 2022, though the attack was performed via the provider of Signal’s SMS services, not any user’s provider.[105] The threat of this attack can be mitigated by enabling Signal’s Registration Lock feature, a form of two-factor authentication that requires the user to enter a PIN to register the phone number on a new device.[147]
They are overlapping areas, but they are “two completely different things”. They overlap by sharing common goals, not by being interchangeable.
Anonymity to me means the message recipient can’t tell who you are.
Right. And Signal doesn’t provide that at all, it ties your private messages to your identity (phone number), it explicitly does not provide anonymity. In fact, it proudly advertises you as a signal user to other signal users that have your number saved. It allows you to post public status updates, it encourages you to save your first and last name on your account.
If a THIRD PARTY (the server operator) can ALSO tell who you are, that’s a privacy failure, not just an anonymity one.
Okay? And? In this hypothetical world where Signal offered anonymity but still tied you to your number for other practical reasons, then you’re be correct that it would be a privacy concern.
But they don’t offer anonymity, they offer private conversations.
They are overlapping areas, but they are “two completely different things”. They overlap by sharing common goals, not by being interchangeable.
They aren’t interchangeable but they intersect. Completely different means they are disjoint.
it proudly advertises you as a signal user to other signal users
That sounds terrible, a private message service shouldn’t advertise anything to anyone. If I subscribe to a subversive magazine, it shouldn’t advertise me to other subscribers. It’s a terrible invasion if they do. Signal and PGP are both comparable to subversive magazines in that regard, even if the PGP manual tried to say the opposite.
I think most of us these days recognize that the whole concept of public key directories and signature chains on PGP keys was a conceptual error in how people thought about privacy back then (they only cared about encrypting message content). We like to think we know better now, but maybe we don’t.
Okay? And? In this hypothetical world where Signal offered anonymity but still tied you to your number for other practical reasons, then you’re be correct that it would be a privacy concern.
According to Wikipedia, they do record some of that info and report it to the government when required. In fact there is further disclosure to them (they might not retain or use the info, but they do receive it) every time you connect to the Signal server.
Anyway the Wikipedia article indicates they have introduced usernames as an alternative to phone numbers, so they have finally acknowledged the problem and done something about it.
It’s okay to be wrong.
- When people would complain about JS on webpages, they were not.
- Completely different things overlap all the time.
- Because your status updates and messages are encrypted and stored (until retrieved, of course) once for every recipient, and that includes your other devices and their other devices.
Because your status updates and messages are encrypted and stored (until retrieved, of course) once for every recipient, and that includes your other devices and their other devices.
I’d like to see a numerical estimate of how much data this is. But, it sounds to me like more reason to want to self-host.
I don’t see any point to rehashing the other stuff. Non-TLS websites mostly went away once DNS spoofing at wifi hotspots became widespread.
But, it sounds to me like more reason to want to self-host.
So do that. You can do that with Signal.
I don’t see any point to rehashing the other stuff. Non-TLS websites mostly went away once DNS spoofing at wifi hotspots became widespread.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, someone said that back in the day registration on a website was a new and bad thing, connecting it with privacy and comparing to Signal asking for phone number. I answered with the idea that not much commonly thought from that time about privacy has aged well. You wouldn’t register on websites, but you would communicate with them over plaintext. I hope that makes it clearer.
So do that. You can do that with Signal.
Do you know of anyone doing it? Other people have said there are difficulties.
You wouldn’t register on websites, but you would communicate with them over plaintext. I hope that makes it clearer.
It is ok, in that era (dialup or wired internet) unencrypted http was basically as secure as unencrypted landlne phone calls. People still have unencrypted phone calls all the time. Typicalally sites would show public content (like product pages on an e-commerce site) by http, then switch to https for checkout to protect stuff like credit card numbers. Encrypting everything became important when wifi became widespread. Wifi hotspots would hijack DNS and spoof entire web sites to steal credentials. Also, LetsEncrypt made it possible to bypass the CA scam industry, making https-everywhere more popular. Public awareness also increased due to Snowden’s disclosures.
The RSA encryption patent also expired in 2000. Before that, US website operators were potentially exposed to hassle if they didn’t use a commercial server with an RSA license ($$$). But, it didn’t apply outside the US and FOSS SSL servers existed for those wanting them.
-
Our phone numbers are not private from them.
Despite this, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
-
If you want to be mainstream a) you can’t have spammers, scammers, and all the other scum of the earth and b) finding your contacts in the app HAVE TO be plug and play. Literally no normie will bother adding with usernames or whatever.
finding your contacts
Wrong, it is not optional, does not stop spam and the worst way to try.
Do not let this derail us. Escaping to libre software is the best return on investment.
Do not let this derail us.
Nothing is derailing you personally. Why are you repeating this to others?
To avoid any misunderstanding discouraging others from using Signal over apps like WhatsApp, while commenting on areas where it could improve. Privacy has never been single player.
Signal fills an incredibly important spot in a spectrum of privacy and usability where it’s extremely usable without sacrificing very much privacy. Sure, to the most concerned privacy enthusits it’s not the best, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to convince friends and family to use Signal than something like Matrix.
So, you’re going to get two schools of thought on this, and one of them is wrong. Horrendously wrong. For perspective, I was a certified CEHv7, so take that for what its worth.
There’s a saying in security circles “security through obscurity isn’t security,” which is a saying from the 1850s and people continually attempt to apply the logic to today’s standards and it’s–frankly stupid–but just plain silly. It generally means that if you hide the key to your house under the floor mat, there’s no point to having the lock, because it doesn’t lend you any real security and that if you release the schematics to security protocols and/or devices (like locks), it makes them less secure. And in this specific context, it makes sense and is an accurate statement. Lots of people will make the argument that F/OSS is more secure because it’s openly available and many will make the argument that it’s less secure. But each argument is moot because it deals with software development and not your private data. lol.
When you apply the same logic to technology and private data it breaks down tremendously. This is the information age. With a persons phone number I can very likely find their home address or their general location. Registered cell phones will forever carry with them the city in which they were activated. So if I have your phone number, and know your name is John Smith, I can look up your number and see where it was activated. It’ll tell me “Dallas, Texas” and now I’m not just looking for John Smith, I’m looking for John Smith in Dallas, Texas. With successive breakdowns like this I will eventually find your home address or at the very least your neighborhood.
The supposition made by Signal (and anyone who defends this model) is that generally anyone with your private number is supposed to have it and even if they do, there’s not much they can do with it. But that’s so incredibly wrong it’s not even funny in 2025.
I’ve seen a great number of people in this thread post things like “privacy isn’t anonymity and anonymity isn’t security,” which frankly I find gobstopping hilarious from a community that will break their neck to suggest everyone run VPNs to protect their online identity as a way to protect yourself from fingerprinting and ad tracking.
It frankly amazes me. Protecting your data, including your phone number is the same as protecting your home address and your private data through redirection from a VPN. I don’t think many in this community would argue against using a VPN. But why they feel you should shotgun your phone number all over the internet is fucking stupid, IMO, or that you should only use a secure messaging protocol to speak to people you know, and not people you don’t know. It’s all just so…stupid.
They’ll then continue to say that you should only use Signal to talk to people you know because “that’s what its for!” as if protecting yourself via encryption from compete fucking strangers has no value all of a sudden. lol
You have to be very careful in this community because there are a significant number of armchair experts which simply parrot the things that they’ve read from others ad-nauseam without actually thinking about the basis of what they’re saying.
OK. That’s my rant. I’m ready for your downvote.
The only thing I’ll tack onto this is that with the introduction of Signal usernames, you still have to give Signal your number to verify that at least on some level, you probably are a real person. As someone with 5 different phone numbers, probably doesn’t stop spam as much as they’d hoped, but more than they feared, but at least now you don’t have to give that Craigslist guy who uses Signal your phone number, just your username. Is that the best method? I dunno, but but it is something.
I was unaware of this change, and it’s perfectly acceptable. No one has any ground to lambast Signal for requiring phone numbers to get an account. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable spam mitigation technique. The issue is having to shotgun your phone number to every Howard and Susan that you want to use Signal to communicate with.
This was honestly the only thing holding me back from actually using Signal. I’ll likely register for an account now.
Spam accounts are clearly the biggest factor for not letting anyone just sign up with an email. Although getting a new email without a phone verification is getting increasingly hard now.
The amount of trolls in this thread that either try to spew false information intentionally or just have no idea what they are talking about is insane.
If you are worried about what data (including your phone number) law enforcement can recieve (if they have your specific user ID, which is not equal to your phone number) from the Signal company check this: https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=21114562 Tldr: It’s the date of registration and last time user was seen online. No other information, Signal just doesn’t have any other and this is by design.
If you want to know more about how they accomplish that feat you can check out the sealed sender feature: https://nerdschalk.com/what-is-sealed-sender-in-signal-and-should-you-enable-it/
or the private contact discovery system: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
Also as Signal only requires a valid phone number for registration you might try some of these methods (not sure if they still work): https://theintercept.com/2024/07/16/signal-app-privacy-phone-number/
This shows they do not need our phone numbers but they still demand it.
Despite this, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
edit: it’s funny how people downvoting comments about signal’s sealed sender being a farce never even attempt to explain what its threat model is supposed to be. (meaning: what attacks, with which adversary capabilities specifically, is it designed to prevent?)
it’s being answered in the github thread you linked. Sorry that this is not enough for you but it’s enough for most people: “For people who are concerned about this sort of thing, you can enable sealed sender indicators in the settings”
it’s being answered in the github thread you linked
The answers there are only about the fact that it can be turned off and that by default clients will silently fall back to “unsealed sender”.
That does not say anything about the question of what attacks it is actually meant to prevent (assuming a user does “enable sealed sender indicators”).
This can be separated into two different questions:
- For an adversary who does not control the server, does sealed sender prevent any attacks? (which?)
- For an adversary who does control the server, how does sealed sender prevent that adversary from identifying the sender (via the fact that they must identify themselves to receive messages, and do so from the same IP address)?
The strongest possibly-true statement i can imagine about sealed sender’s utility is something like this:
For users who enable sealed sender indicators AND who are connecting to the internet from the same IP address as some other Signal users, from the perspective of an an adversary who controls the server, sealed sender increases the size of the set of possible senders for a given message from one to the number of other Signal users who were online from behind the same NAT gateway at the time the message was sent.
This is a vastly weaker claim than saying that “by design” Signal has no possibility of collecting any information at all besides the famous “date of registration and last time user was seen online” which Signal proponents often tout.
Downvoted as you let them bait you. Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
Downvoted as you let them bait you. Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
I don’t know what you mean by “bait” here, but…
Escaping to a phone-number-requiring, centralized-on-Amazon, closed-source-server-having, marketed-to-activists, built-with-funding-from-Radio-Free-Asia (for the specific purpose of being used by people opposing governments which the US considers adversaries) service which makes downright dishonest claims of having a cryptographically-ensured inability to collect metadata? No thanks.
(fuck whatsapp and discord too, of course.)
When it’s libre software, we’re not banned from fixing it.
When it’s libre software, we’re not banned from fixing it.
Signal is a company and a network service and a protocol and some libre software.
Anyone can modify the client software (though you can’t actually distribute modified versions via Apple’s iOS App Store, for reasons explained below) but if a 3rd party actually “fixed” the problems I’ve been talking about here then it really wouldn’t make any sense to call that Signal anymore because it would be a different (and incompatible) protocol.
Only Signal (the company) can approve of changes to Signal (the protocol and service).
Here is why forks of Signal for iOS, like most seemingly-GPLv3 software for iOS, cannot be distributed via the App Store
Apple does not distribute GPLv3-licensed binaries of iOS software. When they distribute binaries compiled from GPLv3-licensed source code, it is because they have received another license to distribute those binaries from the copyright holder(s).
The reason Apple does not distribute GPLv3-licensed binaries for iOS is because they cannot, because the way that iOS works inherently violates the “installation information” (aka anti-tivozation) clause of GPLv3: Apple requires users to agree to additional terms before they can run a modified version of a program, which is precisely what this clause of GPLv3 prohibits.
This is why, unlike the Android version of Signal, there are no forks of Signal for iOS.
The way to have the source code for an iOS program be GPLv3 licensed and actually be meaningfully forkable is to have a license exception like nextcloud/ios/COPYING.iOS. So far, at least, this allows Apple to distribute (non-GPLv3!) binaries of any future modified versions of the software which anyone might make. (Legal interpretations could change though, so, it is probably safer to pick a non-GPLv3 license if you’re starting a new iOS project and have a choice of licenses.)
Anyway, the reason Signal for iOS is GPLv3 and they do not do what NextCloud does here is because they only want to appear to be free/libre software - they do not actually want people to fork their software.
Only Signal (the company) is allowed to give Apple permission to distribute binaries to users. The rest of us have a GPLv3 license for the source code, but that does not let us distribute binaries to users via the distribution channel where nearly all iOS users get their software.
Yeah, iOS is not libre software.
Spam prevention
And discovery.
It’s not an argument. Think about regular mobile numbers, are they preventing spams? No.
deleted by creator
Are you seeing spam on signal? Do you even know why spam is possible on phone networks and what the difference is between phone networks and the internet?
The point, I believe, wasn’t about spam but likely got derailed. It was probably about the phone number requirement being unnecessary. I’ll just add that even if it is, it’s a measure geared towards common users that often need to recover access to their accounts through means they’re already familiar with, as is a verification SMS. It’s not the safest nor the most private, but it’s easier to deal with for most people. Whoever wants something that doesn’t depend on a SIM or eSIM should try Briar and SimpleX. None of these will be a perfect solution for every single person though.
I don’t know what is spam for you, but when you get three message requests from three girls respectively named Tania, Clara and Ella that are contacting you about you carrier or your management skills, I call it spam.
The way that Signal integrates phone number is odd because it opens up the spam door. O understand why Signal use phone numbers this way (to make “normies” adopt Signal more easily like WhatsApp would do) but it not the best to kind of contaminate the network with the traditional cell network
What kind of spam are you talking about
Scams, girls wanting to chat with you, incredible money opportunities…
deleted by creator
I misread the comment you replied to originally (thought they were referring to bot spam prevention)… Signal doesn’t work like the phone network, you can’t necessarily just “call” or “text” a random person. There’s also additional verification before you can send messages sometimes.
