Comment by godelski
4 months ago
> the security problem
You're confusing privacy with security. Phone numbers are a privacy problem and NOT a security problem.
Think of it this way. There's a vault that's locked with secrets inside, but the door is transparent. This does not prevent privacy. But the vault provides security.
Signal is not a transparent door, but is opaque. You can't see inside the vault. But the phone number reveals that you have access to the vault. This is very different than a security problem. Anyone connecting the two can see that you have a vault (security)[0], but they cannot see inside (privacy) or even when you access it (privacy).
There is no security issue with phone numbers.
[0] or can see that at some point in time you had a vault or someone that previously had that number had a vault
Is there not a security problem if your phone number is seized? I don't need excuses about the likelihood of the threat model.
If your number is seized then the new account holder has no chat history. i.e. the vault is cleared out. In that situation you will also be kicked out, clearly telling you that your account has been hijacked.
You can also lock registration of your device.
What is your security concern here?
> You can also lock registration of your device
Registration lock expires in seven days or less. [1]
[1]: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059792-Si...
5 replies →
Impersonation, MITM attack
4 replies →
for this reason there is the signal pin. they need pin and phonenumber to hijack the account. afaik
A lack of privacy is a security problem for messaging. A lack of privacy predisposes some people to rubber hose cryptanalysis by the authorities.
The privacy loss is "phone number has registered a signal account"
It does not
What can you infer here that becomes a security risk? I guess if signal is outlawed before you have installed or your number was ever associated with an account? But it still have plausible deniability there