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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
I downloaded the guardian app and couldn’t find the option.
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.
Using an encrypted messaging app could itself be a red flag, using a news app is normal behavior.
It isn’t.
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/06/05/criminalization-of-encryption-the-8-december-case/
For France, Your a terroriste if you use signal
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!
Then you’re also a terrorist if you use The Guardian 🤷♂️
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?
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.
It’s called traffic analysis
It’s called encryption
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.
Love seeing open source projects from companies that aren’t specifically tech firms
Horrible name sadly
