This just in: threat actors compromising your devices is bad. More at 11.
Obviously the keys could be stored more securely, but if you’ve got malware on your machine that can exploit this you’ve already got bigger problems.
That’s not how this works.
This sort of “dismissive security through ignorance” is how we get so many damn security breaches these days.
I see this every day with software engineers, a group that you would think would be above the bar on security. Unfortunately a little bit of knowledge results in a mountain of confidence (see Dunning Kruger effect). They are just confident in bad choices instead.
“We don’t need to use encryption at rest because if the database is compromised we have bigger problems” really did a lot to protect the last few thousand companies from preventable data exfiltration that was in fact the largest problem they had.
Are you confident in your omnipotence in that you can enumerate all risks and attack factors that can result in data being exfiltrated from a device?
If not, then why comment as if you are?
Can we please all just acknowledge that desktop operating systems absolutely suck (in regards to security)?
How is a Desktop OS any different from a mobile one? This is where you need to be more specific.
There are too many differences for me to list here, but unlike mobile operating systems, Windows and most Linux desktops do not provide sandboxed environments for userspace apps by default. Apps generally have free reign over the whole system; reading/writing data from/to other apps without restriction or notification. There are virtually no safeguards against malicious actors.
Mobile operating systems significantly restrict system-level storage space, making key areas read-only to prevent data access or manipulation. They also protect app storage, so one app can’t arbitrarily access or modify data stored for a different app.
Mobile operating systems also follow an image-based update model, wherein updates are atomic. System software updates are generally applied successfully all at once or not at all, helping to ensure your phone is never left in a partial or unusable state after a system update.
For desktop users, macOS, and atomic Linux distros combined with Flatpak are the closest comparisons.
Whatever its stores and however it stores it doesn’t matter to me: I moved its storage space to my ~/.Private encrypted directory. Same thing for my browser: I don’t use a master password or rely on its encryption because I set it up so it too saves my profile in the ~/.Private directory.
See here for more information. You can essentially secure any data saved by any app with eCryptfs - at least when you’re logged out.
Linux-only of course. In Windows… well, Windows.
Or ext4 encrytion. Which is overpowered. You can have different keys for different files and directories.
E2EE is not supposed to protect if device get compromised.
Plaintext should never be used in any application that deals with security, ever.
Oh no, tell that to SSH.
It doesn’t use plain text. It is end to end encrypted but that isn’t what this “issue” is
unless you’re reading ciphertext yourself, this doesn’t make sense
Indeed, End-to-End Encryption protects data between those ends, not ends themselves. If ends are compromised, no math will help you.
Intrinsically/semantically no but the expectation is that the texts are encrypted at rest and the keys are password and/or tpm+biometric protected. That’s just how this works at this point. Also that’s the government standard for literally everything from handheld devices to satellites (yes, actually).
At this point one of the most likely threat vectors is someone just taking your shit. Things like border crossings, rubber stamped search warrants, cops raid your house because your roommate pissed them off, protests, needing to go home from work near a protest, on and on.
If your device is turned on and you are logged in, your data is no longer at rest.
Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.
If your device’s storage is not encrypted, and you don’t have any type of verified boot process, then thats on you, not Signal.
That’s not how this works.
If the stored data from signal is encrypted and the keys are not protected than that is the security risk that can be mitigated using common tools that every operating system provides.
You’re defending signal from a point of ignorance. This is a textbook risk just waiting for a series of latent failures to allow leaks or access to your “private” messages.
There are many ways attackers can dump files without actually having privileged access to write to or read from memory. However, that’s a moot point as neither you nor I are capable of enumerating all potential attack vectors and risks. So instead of waiting for a known failure to happen because you are personally “confident” in your level of technological omnipotence, we should instead not be so blatantly arrogant and fill the hole waiting to be used.
Also this is a common problem with framework provided solutions:
https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage
This is such a common problem that it has been abstracted into apis for most major desktop frameworks. And every major operating system provides a key ring like service for this purpose.
Because this is a common hole in your security model.
Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.
Having Signal fill in gaps for what the OS should be protecting is just going to stretch Signal more than it already does. I would agree that if Signal can properly support that kind of protection on EVERY OS that its built for, go for it. But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.
Damn reading literacy has gone downhill these days.
Please reread my post.
But this should be an OS level protection that can be offered to Signal as an app, not the other way around.
- OSs provide keyring features already
- The framework signal uses (electron) has a built in API for this EXACT NEED
Cmon, you can do better than this, this is just embarrassing.
Signal data will be encrypted if your disk is also encrypted.
True.
and you don’t have any type of verified boot process
How motherboard refusing to boot from another drive would protect anything?
Its more about protecting your boot process from malware.
Well, yes. By refusing to boot. It can’t do anything if motherboard is replaced.
Thats correct. Thats one of the many perks.
EDIT: s/do anything/prevent booting/
TPM isn’t all that reliable. You will have people upgrading their pc, or windows update updating their bios, or any number of other reasons reset their tpm keys, and currently nothing will happen. In effect people would see Signal completely break and loose all their data, often seemingly for no reason.
Talking to windows or through it to the TPM also seems sketchy.
In the current state of Windows, the sensible choice is to leave hardware-based encryption to the OS in the form of disk encryption, unfortunate as it is. The great number of people who loose data or have to recover their backup disk encryption key from their Microsoft account tells how easily that system is disturbed (And that Microsoft has the decryption keys for your encrypted date).
One could argue that Windows is compromised right out of the box.
Source:
Microsoft are integrating adware and spyware straight into the os.
Source:
Try setup fresh windows 11 system.
I don’t understand how that would prove anything.
A lot of tracker and spyware already mention in setup. And without bypass you cannot setup without microsoft account.
source: 93% of ransomware are windows based
Correlation is not causation.
Causation was never stated nor implied
99% of people in France are French
BUT WHAT OF QUEBEC
Are they in france?
“The computer” decides when to install updates and which ones to install.
Mfw end to end can be compromised at the end.
That said, they should fix this anyway
dawg what the shitfuck
The real problem is that the security model for apps on mobile is much better than that for apps on desktop. Desktop apps should all have private storage that no other non-root app can access. And while we’re at it, they should have to ask permission before activating the mic or camera.
Firejail and bwrap. Flatpaks. There are already ways to do this, but I only know of one distro that separates apps by default like Android does (separate user per app), which is the brand new “EasyOS”.
They do sort of with Flatpak
macOS has nailed it*, even though it’s still not as good as iOS or Android, but leagues and bounds better than Windows and especially Linux.
ETC: *sandboxing/permission system
What does Windows do? Genuine question, I’ve not used it since the 7 days. Regarding Linux, that’s true for stuff installed through regular package managers and whatnot, but Flatpak is pushing a more sandboxed and permission oriented system, akin to Android.
You have granular control over universal windows apps (ie windows 8+ apps) and one global lock over all desktop apps (non uwp), and one global lock over everything. It’s pretty solid considering how little control Microsoft has and it’s wonderful fetish for compatibility.
Tldr basically same as Linux, except app distribution in Linux was bad enough for so long that more stuff is in the new restricted format while windows still has tons of things which will never go away and aren’t in the sandbox. I think not finding a way to sandbox all desktop apps was a mistake.
What’s wrong with the Flatpak permissions system on Linux?
It’s a joke. Apps have defined permissions already allowed on install and some of them have too many things set to allow like home or host access. Also, changing any permission requires restarting the app. It’s heading in the right direction, but it has a looooong way to go to catch up with macOS, let alone Android and iOS.
While it would certainly be nice to see this addressed, I don’t recall Signal ever claiming their desktop app provided encryption at rest. I would also think that anyone worried about that level of privacy would be using disappearing messages and/or regularly wiping their history.
That said, this is just one of the many reasons why whole disk encryption should be the default for all mainstream operating systems today, and why per-app permissions and storage are increasingly important too.
Full disk encryption doesn’t help with this threat model at all. A rogue program running on the same machine can still access all the files.
It does help greatly in general though, because all of your data will be encrypted when the device is at rest. Theft and B&Es will no longer present a risk to your privacy.
Per-app permissions address this specific threat model directly. Containerized apps, such as those provided by Flatpak can ensure that apps remain sandboxed and unable to access data without explicit authorization.
I don’t recall Signal ever claiming their desktop app provided encryption at rest.
I’m not sure if they’ve claimed that, but it does that using SQLCipher.
Exactly.
I’ll admit to being lazy and not enabling encryption on my Windows laptops. But if I deployed something for someone, it would be encrypted.
Does encrypting your disks change something for the end user in day to day usage? I’m honest, I’ve never used encrypted disks in my life.
It depends on how you set it up. I think the default in some cases (like Windows Bitlocker) is to store the key in TPM, so everything becomes transparent to the user at that point, although many disagree with this method for privacy/security reasons.
The other method is to provide a password or keyfile during bootup, which does change something for the end user somewhat.
It’s transparent for end user basically, but protects the laptop at least when outside and if someone steals the computer. As long as it was properly shutdown.
Define properly shut down. Do your thieves usually ask first?
I think they’re just referring to an outdated concept of OSes with non-journaling filesystems that can cause data corruption if the disk is shut off abruptly, which in theory could corrupt the entire disk at once if it was encrypted at a device level. But FDE was never used in the time of such filesystems anyways.
If you suspend the laptop when moving locations instead of shutting down or hibernating to disk then disk encryption is useless.
Most operating systems will require your desktop password upon resume, and most thieves are low-functioning drug users who are not about to go Hacker Man on your laptop. They will most likely just wipe the system and install something else; if they can even figure that out.
No, the average user will never know the difference. I couldn’t tell you exactly what the current performance impact is for hardware encryption, but it’s likely around 1-4% depending on the platform (I use LUKS under Linux).
For gamers, it’s likely a 1-5 FPS loss, depending on your hardware, which is negligible in my experience. I play mostly first and third person shooter-style games at 1440p/120hz, targeting 60-90 FPS, and there’s no noticeable impact (Ryzen 5600 / RX 6800XT).
For gamers, it’s likely a 1-5 FPS loss
I highly doubt it… would love to see some hard data on that. Most algorithms used for disk encryption these days are already faster than RAM, and most games are not reading gigabytes/sec from the disk every frame during gameplay for this to ever matter.
If it has to go to disk for immediate loading of assets while playing a video game you’re losing more than 1-5 fps
Maybe, but not every frame while you’re playing. No game is loading gigs of data every frame. That would be the only way most encryption algorithms would slow you down.
You’re more likely going to get stuttering or asset streaming issues which are going to have more impact than losing a few fps.
Yeah, I’m sure there are a lot of variables there. I can only say that in my experience, I noticed zero impact to gaming performance when I started encrypting everything about 10 years ago. No stuttering or noticeable frame loss. It was a seamless experience and brings real peace of mind knowing that our financial info, photos, and other sensitive files are safely locked away.
Whole disk encryption wouldn’t change your daily usage, no. It just means that when you boot your PC you have to enter your passphrase. And if your device becomes unbootable for whatever reason, and you want to access your drive, you’ll just have to decrypt it first to be able to read it/write to it, e.g. if you want to rescue files from a bricked computer. But there’s no reason not to encrypt your drive. I can’t think of any downsides.
If any part of the data gets corrupted you lose the whole thing. Recovery tools can’t work with partially corrupted encrypted data.
I don’t think that’s a big deal with Signal data. You can log back into your account, you’d just lose your messages. idk how most people use Signal but I have disappearing messages on for everything anyway, and if a message is that important to you then back it up.
Bruh windows and linux have a secrets vault (cred manager and keyring respectively, iirc) for this exact purpose.
Even Discord uses it on both OSs no problem
There is just no excuse for not even salting or SOMETHING to keep the secrets out of plaintext. The reason you don’t store in plaintext is because it can lead to even incidental collection. Say you have some software, perhaps spyware, perhaps it’s made by a major corporation so doesn’t get called that and it crawls around and happens to upload a copy of a full or portion of the file containing this info, now it’s been uploaded and compromised potentially not even by a malicious actor successfully gaining access to a machine but by poor practices.
No it can’t stop a sophisticated malware specifically targeting Signal to steal credentials and gain access but it does mean casual malware that hasn’t taken the time out to write a module to do that is out of luck and increases the burden on attackers. No it won’t stop the NSA but it’s still something that it stops someone’s 17 year old niece who knows a little bit about computers but is no malware author from gaining access to your signal messages and account because she could watch a youtube video and follow along with simple tools.
The claims Signal is an op or the runner is under a national security letter order to compromise it look more and more plausible in light of weird bad basic practices like this and their general hostility. I’ll still use it and it’s far from the worst looking thing out there but there’s something unshakably weird about the lead dev, their behavior and practices that can’t be written off as being merely a bit quirky.
To encrypt it you would need to store a encryption key
It’s plaintext all the way down.
The irony
for not even salting
Wrong secret
I mean combined with any kind of function, even a trivial kind. A salt derived from some machine state data (a random install id generated on install, a hash of computer name, etc) plus a rot13 or something would still be better than leaving it plaintext.
Wire does this too :/
Don’t use Wire as it isn’t good for privacy or security
Don’t use signal as its not good for anonymity
It is better than Wire and cryptography wise it is very solid
What is Wire?
A different encrypted messaging service. Decent, but hasn’t taken off despite using email for accounts rather than phone bonkers numbers
All these apps are going to have to understand that they MUST be compatible between each other
I mean, not really.
Which standard are they going to be forced to use? What infrastructure? What encryption? Are they going to be forced to develop apps for every platform?
The best you can hope to expect is apps using the same standard being compatible. Xmpp, matrix, whisper, whatever. Even matrix bridges don’t really fix compatibility across standards very well.
It’s nice to think that anyone anywhere, could expect to install any app and communicate with anyone else and maintain encryption as well as full privacy. But as far as anyone I’ve ever seen talk about it that’s actually trained in the technology behind it all, it isn’t possible unless there’s a single, enforced standard in use.
Does it suck to have to deal with multiple apps? Hell yes. But I also don’t like the idea of being forced to use whatever compromise protocol would make it realistic. I’d rather have a dozen apps with no single gatekeeper between them.
Isn’t this going to be enforced by the EU 3 months ago?
Ah yes, another prime example that demonstrates that Lemmy is no different than Reddit. Everyone thinks they are a professional online.
Nothing sensitive should ever lack encryption especially in the hands of a third party company managing your data claiming you are safe and your privacy is protected.
No one is invincible and it’s okay to criticize the apps we hold to high regards. If your are pissed people are shitting on Signal you should be pissed Signal gave people a reason to shit on them.
Where are you going to store the encryption key? At the end of the day the local machine is effectively pwded anyway
I presume keys are already sort of encrypted?
Nope. Your presumption is wrong.
👍
especially in the hands of a third party company managing your data claiming you are safe and your privacy is protected.
Yeah, especially in this specific situation that isn’t relevant to this situation.
If your device gets compromised, it’s no longer the company’s problem.
How in the fuck are people actually defending signal for this, and with stupid arguments such as windows is compromised out of the box?
You. Don’t. Store. Secrets. In. Plaintext.
There is no circumstance where an app should store its secrets in plaintext, and there is no secret which should be stored in plaintext. Especially since this is not some random dudes random project, but a messenger claiming to be secure.
You. Don’t. Store. Secrets. In. Plaintext.
Ok. Enter password at every launch.
You. Don’t. Store. Secrets. In. Plaintext.
SSH stores the secret keys in plaintext too. In a home dir accessible only by the owning user.
I won’t speak about Windows but on Linux and other Unix systems the presumption is that if your home dir is compromised you’re fucked anyway. Effort should be spent on actually protecting access to the home personal files not on security theater.
SSH has encrypted keys
Not true, SSH keys need their passphrase to be used. If you don’t set one, that’s on you.
If someone gets access they can delete your keys, or set up something that can intercept your keys in other ways.
The security of data at rest is just one piece of the puzzle. In many systems the access to the data is considered much more important than whether the data itself is encrypted in one particular scenario.
Well yes, but also how would users react if they had to type in their passphrase every time they open the app? This is also exactly what we’re giving up everywhere else by clicking ‘remember this device’.
Come on, 95% of users don’t set passwords on their ssh keys
Where are these stays from lmao.
Counting my friends
You can count me too
Kinda expected the SSH key argument. The difference is the average user group.
The average dude with a SSH key that’s used for more than their RPi knows a bit about security, encryption and opsec. They would have a passphrase and/or hardening mechanisms for their system and network in place. They know their risks and potential attack vectors.
The average dude who downloads a desktop app for a messenger that advertises to be secure and E2EE encrypted probably won’t assume that any process might just wire tap their whole “encrypted” communications.
Let’s not forget that the threat model has changed by a lot in the last years, and a lot of effort went into providing additional security measures and best practices. Using a secure credential store, additional encryption and not storing plaintext secrets are a few simple ones of those. And sure, on Linux the SSH key is still a plaintext file. But it’s a deliberate decision of you to keep it as plaintext. You can at least encrypt with a passphrase. You can use the actual working file permission model of Linux and SSH will refuse to use your key with loose permissions. You would do the same on Windows and Mac and use a credential store and an agent to securely store and use your keys.
Just because your SSH key is a plaintext file and the presumption of a secure home dir, you still wouldn’t do a ~/passwords.txt.
How in the fuck are people actually defending signal for this
Probably because Android (at least) already uses file-based encryption, and the files stored by apps are not readable by other apps anyways.
And if people had to type in a password every time they started the app, they just wouldn’t use it.
AFAIK Android encrypts entire fs with one key. And ACL is not encryption.
Popular encrypted messaging app Signal is facing criticism over a security issue in its desktop application.
Emphasis mine.
I think the point is the developers might have just migrated the code without adjustments since that is how it was implemented before. Similar to how PC game ports sometimes run like shit since they are a close 1-1 of the original which is not always the most optimized or ideal, but the quickest to output.
Been a few days since using electron, but AFAIK electron can’t be used as a wrapper for android apps, or can it? Or is their android app a web app wrapped into a “native” android app too?
Also, since this seems to be an issue since 2018, 6 years should be plenty to rewrite using a native secure storage…
If someone has access to your machine you are screwed anyway. You need to store the encryption key somewhere
Yes, in your head, and in your second factor, if possible, keeping them always encrypted at rest, decrypting at the latest possible moment and not storing (decrypted) secrets in-memory for longer than absolutely necessary at use.
All your session cookies are stored in plaintext.
They could just add a password
Alternative headline: Someone has a feature request for Signal which would be of interest to a few people with very specific security needs.
It’s not a bad feature to ensure that eg if there’s a malicious process running on your computer it can’t send all your signal data to whomever
Needing to enter a secure passphrase each time you want to use signal in exchange for one more fragile layer of defence for that one part of your data in a scenario that would normally mean you’ve already lost unless you’re running a super-secure compartmentalized operating system like qubes or something is probably not worth it for most people.
I already enter a passphrase every time I want to use Signal; I use the Molly client on my phone. It’s really not a big deal. I also enter a passphrase every time I launch my password manager, every time I launch my two-factor authentication app on my phone, and every time I open my email client. I think it’s fairly standard to protect sensitive data on your computer with encryption at rest and to decrypt it upon launching the application that handles the data.
It’s really not a big deal
For most casual users, it is a deal-breaker. And it’s hard to get everyday people to use your software with roadblocks like that.
every time I open my email client.
You must not get email very often, this is absolutely a non-starter for me.
For most casual users, it is a deal-breaker. And it’s hard to get everyday people to use your software with roadblocks like that.
That’s fair enough, but the way the mobile app works is that you can opt in to having encryption at rest with a passphrase, so if you want to leave your signal database unencrypted you can.
You must not get email very often, this is absolutely a non-starter for me.
Once you open it you can leave it open if you need notifications. Sometimes I leave it open, sometimes I just want to check my emails and then close it. Idk, I really think typing in a password for authentication/decryption regularly is such a non-issue, like for instance do you not regularly type in a password when you run a command with sudo? Again, if it’s opt-in I also don’t see the issue, except for the issue of allowing people to not encrypt their Signal data thus potentially compromising the people they’re messaging, but obviously that issue is currently universal for Signal desktop.
Huh. I would’ve thought most desktop users just leave it running all day long like I do. Obviously there is the disk encryption passphrase at boot, adding another one for signal would in my case be redundant.
But the point is not only how easy it is to enter a passphrase, but also how much security that actually gains you. I don’t think it does much on the typical desktop, be it windows or linux, where there are so many ways to escalate or persist privilege for anyone that has user-level access.
Obviously there is the disk encryption passphrase at boot, adding another one for signal would in my case be redundant.
I also have full disk encryption, but I still have some databases on my disk encrypted because I decrypt my disk when I boot my computer. But yeah if you have Signal open (& its db decrypted) all the time it would probably be minimal. I don’t have Signal open all the time though, only when I want to check messages or am actively using it
I don’t think it does much on the typical desktop, be it windows or linux, where there are so many ways to escalate or persist privilege for anyone that has user-level access.
The point would be encryption, even the root user wouldn’t be able to read encrypted data if they don’t have the passphrase
If you have root, intercepting all the user’s keystrokes is trivial.
I would’ve thought most desktop users just leave it running all day long like I do.
They do. OP is not a normal user.
This has nothing to do with the mobile app, which also has password/biometric unlocking, it’s about the desktop electron app.
I know. I never said it was about the mobile app?
You did but it says “desktop” right in the page title.
I’m now genuinely not sure what you’re saying. I did what? I said it was about the mobile app? I didn’t say it was about the mobile app?
You mean the types of people who would use signal to communicate with others?
Sure, I was aware. You have the same problem with ssh keys, gpg keys and many other things
However, you can save encrypted ssh, gpg keys and save that encryption key in the OS keyring.
Yes, but you STILL need to enter password on every reboot.
Is it possible to seamlessly integrate, so when something requests those keys you’ll get a prompt?
With SSH at least you can password protect the key itself so that you always get a prompt.
Nice, didn’t know, I’ll look into it
