New design sets a high standard for post-quantum readiness.

    • lemmee_in@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      99
      ·
      2 months ago

      Signal puts a lot of effort into their threat model that assumes a hostile host (i.e. AWS). That’s the whole point of end to end encryption, even if the host is compromised the attackers do not get any information. They even go as far as padding out the lengths of encrypted messages so everyone looks like they are sending identical blocks of data

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        sending identical blocks of data

        Nitpicking here but assuming from the previous words in your comment that you mean blocks of data of identical length.

        Although it should be as if we are sending multiples of identical size, I suppose.

        Anyway, sorry for nitpicking.

    • elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I guess the research doesn’t have to be limited to signal. If other apps can benefit from it the more resilient “private communications over the internet” get.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      So that’s why Signal didn’t send my messages very quickly today then, maybe.

      • DaGeek247@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not completely out yet. That was likely AWS being down.

        Also, the new quantum protected message encryption headers are about 2kb. If that’s causing issues with your internet, you may want to consider looking at new internet.

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          2kb? While it may not sound like much, that’s at least three packets worth of data (depending on MTU). If you think about it in terms of how TCP sends packets and needs ACKs, there’s actually a lot of round trip data processing going on for just that one part.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            TCP will generally send up to 10 packets immediately without waiting for the ACKs (depending on the configured window size).

            Generally any messages or websites under 14kb will be transmitted in a single round-trip assuming no packets are dropped.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That was likely AWS being down.

          Sorry, yeah, that’s the only thing I was referring to.

          My internet connection is 500/500 Mbps, and I can’t change it. 😄👍

          • naticus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Should have been pretty obvious to anyone reading any tech news whatsoever today, especially in the context of where you responded. No apology from you should have been necessary!

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You would think 😅 The sorry was sightly sarcastic, but shhh, nobody need know

      • DiabolicalBird@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I did, it’s a buggy undercooked mess that doesn’t work half the time. The app that’s officially supported is missing half the features. Trying to get people to switch to it is like pulling teeth as the onboarding process in overly complicated for the average user.

        Meanwhile Signal works right out of the box with very little fuss.

      • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I could. Presumably so could the others commenting on this post. But then what are we to do about the privacy or tech illiterate people we’ve carried to Signal over the years?

        It’s easy to winge about just doing what you perceive as the optimal solution. It’s more difficult when you need to navigate the path to get there from where we are now.

    • jpv2390@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because my grandpa can work with signal which is still encrypted communication. Thus its a low threshhold to adoption and significant increase in cyber hygiene. Even for his type of audience.

    • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because Matrix barely works half the time and has some significant security/privacy flaws still. One of which is: if there’s a bug that makes it possible for someone to snoop your metadata and the fix requires a server update… You’re SOL if the people you’re talking to don’t get the update.

    • HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      It took me years of begging and pleading with my wife to start using signal, the setup for which is way easier than matrix. I don’t think I’d be able to get my wife to use matrix due to the increased complexity.

      I have secure comms with my wife (albeit centralized) and that’s what’s important to me.

  • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Having in mind we are not even close to breaking classical cryptography with quantum computing I doubt this was their best investment of time

    • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 months ago

      the best time was yesterday. the next best time is today. securing systems after they’re broken, when data could actively be collected prior to the breakthrough, is not the way to approach security.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are nation states just straight up intercepting and storing signal data on their networks in hopes that it can be decrypted in the future. 20 year old messages will still be useful.

    • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Once quantum computers break classical cryptography, it’s going to be too late to develop post-quantum cryptography, mate.

      The best time to develop resilience is right now.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even if quantum computing turns out to actually be infeasible and classical cryptography is secure for the next millennia, it’s still a good feature to have a third independent encryption layer in the protocol. It makes it that much less likely reliant on the other two being bulletproof.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          How sure are you? Assign a percentage chance to it and the cost of exposing old messages, and compare that to the cost of this dev effort.

          We know governments are using it, and there’s likely a lot of sensitive data transmitted through Signal, so the cost of it happening in the next 20 years would still be substantial, so even if the chance of that timeline happening is small, there’s still value in investing in forward secrecy.

    • djmikeale@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their core feature is secure messaging, so I’d say this result highlights their dedication to the secure aspect of it. So an excellent feature in terms of branding, and probably has more benefits in other places e.g. attracting talent, as developers now can see Signal offers great opportunities to work on complex problems.

      So I’m curious; what do you think would be better investment of their time?

      • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Like allowing a federated system instead of a central one, not depending in external libraries and services, and so on. I bet there are many things that would actually improve the security instead of this that is more of a marketing point.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s future-proofing. It means my messages are not only safe today but, even if they are intercepted or leaked somehow, will also be safe in the future.

    • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lol, it shows the hype quantum computing has sold and how detached the public thought is about it from reality.

      I’m friends with two quantum computing researchers and they are pretty sure quantum computing will never be a practical application because of how the noise and errors scale with the system size.

      • L501@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        The quantum computing hype is really annoying but we don’t know the future. One day there might be a breakthrough in noise reduction. I’d rather signal have post-quantum cryptography and not need it than get blindsided if there is suddenly a qc that can break rsa with shor. Not to mention intelligence agencies doing store now/decrypt later stuff.