Encrypted calls and SMS: will it ever get out of the fragmentation?

Forums › Off topic › Encrypted calls and SMS: will it ever get out of the fragmentation?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41034

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#166235 6-Mar-2015 18:49

WhatsApp, Viber, Kik, Skype, SMS... Lots and lots of ways of firing short messages but not all are really private. SMS for example is stored by your telco and available to officials (with proper process for access).

Enter some "secure" communication tools, such as TextSecure (now available on iOS as Signal) and RedPhone both from Open WhisperSystems.

Problem is really who is using it? Out of almost 3,000 contacts in my phonebook only three use TextSecure - this number may even increase now that iOS got its own version. But still...

I guess there's a long way for people to think of their privacy in this world of Twitter and Facebook.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

eXDee

4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1070

Trusted

#1252473 6-Mar-2015 19:18

Convenience often trumps security and privacy in a lot of peoples minds. If consulted directly on it, people will claim they care, but their actions will tend towards what is the most convenient. So if its easiest to use a messaging platform which has all their friends but isnt secure, they will likely do that.

I liked what Cyanogenmod implemented a while back, they baked it into the SMS stack and it worked transparently - if you opted in to it when it prompts, it does a lookup on whether your number is registered (kinda like whatsapp or maybe imessage has) and if so, it quietly does a key exchange with the person on the text first message. It transparently worked with all messaging apps too. Again this suffers from the same critical mass problem, but it was the same system from Moxie/OpenWhisper.

Really I think it relies on these apps with critical mass to support encryption (many of which do), rather than waiting for the masses to get up and migrate to new platforms. Then ideally move towards perfect forward secrecy implementations for the encryption within the application. Of course for this to be of any use it relies on devices also being secure, and that comes down to full device encryption + no dodgy apps or backdoored software/hardware.

xlinknz

1141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 168

Trusted

#1252530 6-Mar-2015 21:54

The question is who do you not want not see or listen to your msgs ?

The spooks ?
Telco's/ISPs ?
The Net ?

chewster

127 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

#1252535 6-Mar-2015 22:24

I agree, the 'chat app' category is now so saturated it's a hard sell to convince someone they need another one. I have 10 chat apps, and Signal has been my favourite since they upgraded it to be able to message.

I liked the direction of Microsoft Phone 7+ where Skype, SMS & Facebook chat were (still are?) knitted into a single thread. Then No need to remember what app that crucial bit of information is in. I found it very efficient.

If my post helped you, consider my referrals (: Sharesies $5 referral code, Skinny 4GB buddy code, Contact Energy $100 promo code

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41034

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1252536 6-Mar-2015 22:25

xlinknz: The question is who do you not want not see or listen to your msgs ?

The spooks ?
Telco's/ISPs ?
The Net ?

No, that's the wrong question. You don't have to do it to hide from some specific perceived or real threat. You have to do it to maintain your privacy.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41034

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1252537 6-Mar-2015 22:27

KieranReid: I agree, the 'chat app' category is now so saturated it's a hard sell to convince someone they need another one. I have 10 chat apps, and Signal has been my favourite since they upgraded it to be able to message.

Is it able to replace the default Messaging app like TextSecure can do on Android?

KieranReid: I liked the direction of Microsoft Phone 7+ where Skype, SMS & Facebook chat were (still are?) knitted into a single thread. Then No need to remember what app that crucial bit of information is in. I found it very efficient.

Nah, Microsoft broke it.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1252550 6-Mar-2015 23:35

freitasm:
xlinknz: The question is who do you not want not see or listen to your msgs ?

The spooks ?
Telco's/ISPs ?
The Net ?

No, that's the wrong question. You don't have to do it to hide from some specific perceived or real threat. You have to do it to maintain your privacy.

I mean, I don't reckon my texts are that important for them to be encrypted from the authorities (or anyone else) at this stage. It just doesn't make sense to get friends on a new platform, just to hide that "Meet you at Starbucks at 10am tomorrow" message IMO...

Sony

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

timmmay

20858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5350

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1252563 7-Mar-2015 07:17

I don't mind if people know what we're having for dinner or what time I'm meeting someone.

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1252581 7-Mar-2015 09:37

xlinknz:
Telco's/ISPs ?

We don't want to see your messages. Go ahead and encrypt them.

But in answer to Mauricio's question, the answer is, not until there is a standard for it that is mandated by an international body, in my opinion. I know a lot of IT types want to hate all over the ITU*, but there's a reason you can just pick up a phone and call anybody anywhere in the world, and that reason is the ITU. And by 'The ITU' I also mean the other related bodies such as ETSI, ANSI & 3GPP, before anybody jumps on me. :-)

However, there are two problems - firstly, governments will interfere. This is not a problem unique to telephony standards, as should now be very clear, but it is a problem. The second problem is legacy; there are many billions of devices around the world. If you want to talk to someone who does not support end-to-end encryption, then you need to fall back to clear-text. Given that there are still more than a few active teleprinter services in some places, it's a given that legacy non-encrypted services will be the norm for a very long time.

But this is an important weakness - one of the best ways to defeat the air interface ciphers for cellular services is knock them down to 2G where the cipher is weak enough to be broken real-time, or even forced to cipher mode off.

* I will also admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude when it became known that certain features of certain IT-land security standards were deliberately weakened by the NSA, such as mandatory null cipher support in IPSec, and backdoors in ECC algorithms.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1252583 7-Mar-2015 09:43

There were a few of us that had it turned on with our 1+ phones

We noticed that most of the text messages sent to each other did not turn up at all, however text to other people not using it worked fine.

We all ended up turning it off as it just did not work.

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1252584 7-Mar-2015 09:49

sonyxperiageek:

I mean, I don't reckon my texts are that important for them to be encrypted from the authorities (or anyone else) at this stage. It just doesn't make sense to get friends on a new platform, just to hide that "Meet you at Starbucks at 10am tomorrow" message IMO...

At this stage, neither are mine. I also wear completely ordinary Bonds undies I bought in a 5-pack from the supermarket because I'm too lazy even for a specific trip to The Warehouse to buy new ones. That doesn't mean I feel like storing them out on the fence where anyone driving past can watch me picking a pair out for the day. Since 'asking nicely' doesn't seem to be viable strategy, pervasive, strong, end to end encryption is the only way governments - and anyone else - will get the message that their attitude of 'what's yours is mine' can go take a running jump.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1252593 7-Mar-2015 10:38

SaltyNZ:
sonyxperiageek:

I mean, I don't reckon my texts are that important for them to be encrypted from the authorities (or anyone else) at this stage. It just doesn't make sense to get friends on a new platform, just to hide that "Meet you at Starbucks at 10am tomorrow" message IMO...

At this stage, neither are mine. I also wear completely ordinary Bonds undies I bought in a 5-pack from the supermarket because I'm too lazy even for a specific trip to The Warehouse to buy new ones. That doesn't mean I feel like storing them out on the fence where anyone driving past can watch me picking a pair out for the day. Since 'asking nicely' doesn't seem to be viable strategy, pervasive, strong, end to end encryption is the only way governments - and anyone else - will get the message that their attitude of 'what's yours is mine' can go take a running jump.

But that would be a different scenario, as "storing them out on the fence" is like giving the public easy access to your text messages. It's not. It's giving the authorities easy access to your text messages.

But yes, I sorta agree with your "attitude" stance with the government.

Sony

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41034

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1252611 7-Mar-2015 11:20

sonyxperiageek:
SaltyNZ:
sonyxperiageek:

I mean, I don't reckon my texts are that important for them to be encrypted from the authorities (or anyone else) at this stage. It just doesn't make sense to get friends on a new platform, just to hide that "Meet you at Starbucks at 10am tomorrow" message IMO...

At this stage, neither are mine. I also wear completely ordinary Bonds undies I bought in a 5-pack from the supermarket because I'm too lazy even for a specific trip to The Warehouse to buy new ones. That doesn't mean I feel like storing them out on the fence where anyone driving past can watch me picking a pair out for the day. Since 'asking nicely' doesn't seem to be viable strategy, pervasive, strong, end to end encryption is the only way governments - and anyone else - will get the message that their attitude of 'what's yours is mine' can go take a running jump.

But that would be a different scenario, as "storing them out on the fence" is like giving the public easy access to your text messages. It's not. It's giving the authorities easy access to your text messages.

But yes, I sorta agree with your "attitude" stance with the government.

Put in a different way then: I have nothing to hide but I have every right to fear. So instead of sending a postcard I send a letter. The difference is that one is open for everyone to read, the other is in an envelope.

It's a crime to willfuly open a letter not intended to you but the government will have access to the contents of the letter while in transit if a warrant is issued. They are not even required to notify me of this.

So I want to keep sending letters instead of postcards. I don't want someone to know I am away from home and visit our house to steal our stuff. Postcards would give that away easily, the letter not, unless a MITM attack happens - someone intercepted, opened and read it. This is unlawful with the exception above.

The law protects me, you see?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1252677 7-Mar-2015 13:14

freitasm:
sonyxperiageek:
SaltyNZ:
sonyxperiageek:

I mean, I don't reckon my texts are that important for them to be encrypted from the authorities (or anyone else) at this stage. It just doesn't make sense to get friends on a new platform, just to hide that "Meet you at Starbucks at 10am tomorrow" message IMO...

At this stage, neither are mine. I also wear completely ordinary Bonds undies I bought in a 5-pack from the supermarket because I'm too lazy even for a specific trip to The Warehouse to buy new ones. That doesn't mean I feel like storing them out on the fence where anyone driving past can watch me picking a pair out for the day. Since 'asking nicely' doesn't seem to be viable strategy, pervasive, strong, end to end encryption is the only way governments - and anyone else - will get the message that their attitude of 'what's yours is mine' can go take a running jump.

But that would be a different scenario, as "storing them out on the fence" is like giving the public easy access to your text messages. It's not. It's giving the authorities easy access to your text messages.

But yes, I sorta agree with your "attitude" stance with the government.

Put in a different way then: I have nothing to hide but I have every right to fear. So instead of sending a postcard I send a letter. The difference is that one is open for everyone to read, the other is in an envelope.

It's a crime to willfuly open a letter not intended to you but the government will have access to the contents of the letter while in transit if a warrant is issued. They are not even required to notify me of this.

So I want to keep sending letters instead of postcards. I don't want someone to know I am away from home and visit our house to steal our stuff. Postcards would give that away easily, the letter not, unless a MITM attack happens - someone intercepted, opened and read it. This is unlawful with the exception above.

The law protects me, you see?

Yes, for big things yes I agree with you. I was merely saying (as in my first post here) that I wouldn't mind them snooping on a text message or ten, but again, it is good to have your kind of "attitude" towards these privacy things.

Sony

xlinknz

1141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 168

Trusted

#1252961 7-Mar-2015 20:23

freitasm:
xlinknz: The question is who do you not want not see or listen to your msgs ?

The spooks ?
Telco's/ISPs ?
The Net ?

No, that's the wrong question. You don't have to do it to hide from some specific perceived or real threat. You have to do it to maintain your privacy.

The threat is to our privacy

SaltyNZ:
xlinknz:
Telco's/ISPs ?

However, there are two problems - firstly, governments will interfere....

* I will also admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude when it became known that certain features of certain IT-land security standards were deliberately weakened by the NSA, such as mandatory null cipher support in IPSec, and backdoors in ECC algorithms.

Exactly. Governments WILL interfere [usually at the behest of their or other govts security and intelligence agencies]. Was it the UK PM advocating that encryption should be banned ?!

A shame Ladar Levison isn't a geekzone member, I"m sure he would have a lot to say on this