Discussion:
[whispersystems] A brief suggestion about a future abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature
#359
2015-01-15 11:09:37 UTC
Permalink
1. We all know that maintaining encrypted SMS feature in TextSecure is a
big pain for developers and also (some) users, so I won't be wasting
more words about this.

2. We also know that many users are (wanted or not) stuck with this
feature and the words about increased push messaging usage among
Android users worldwide are of no help.


Aknowledging both these facts I suggest:

*- when the time comes to finally get rid of encrypted SMS feature we
don't get rid of it completely, but we make this feature only available
as a plug-in. By doing this we make sure that only those who REALLY need
this faeture will install it. 90% of TextSecure users won't.*

*- if that's not enuogh the plugin could only be available as a "beta"
app. That means to install it, you'll need to apply for it on Google+.
So only **1%** of TextSecure/Signal users will install it.*

*- or it could be only accessible on GitHub for people that know how to
compile it from source.*


I know some might say that this is against the "there are no power
users" philosophy that i highly agree with in general. But the Encrypted
SMS feature is really great, needed and it IS working however limited it
is. Abandoning it completely would open a big dark gap in encrypted
communications.

Just my 0,5€. I hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time.


best,

- jure
Mark Senior
2015-01-21 21:12:20 UTC
Permalink
I think that would make the feature mostly accessible to the people who
least need it.

Stereotype ahead: "Power users" (is this a taboo term in this context?)
are, I would guess, the people most likely to have generous data plans.
Those most likely to have talk-and-text-only plans would be the users for
whom any obstacles as described would simply result in their not using
TextSecure.

Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that it's
an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero. I wouldn't be
surprised at all if my situation was actually that of a largish percentage
of users.

Is there a way of gathering statistics on the percentage of TextSecure
users in similar situations? Who have installed the app and never sent a
push message, presumably because they had nobody to send one to?

Regards
Mark
Post by #359
1. We all know that maintaining encrypted SMS feature in TextSecure is a
big pain for developers and also (some) users, so I won't be wasting more
words about this.
2. We also know that many users are (wanted or not) stuck with this
feature and the words about increased push messaging usage among Android
users worldwide are of no help.
*- when the time comes to finally get rid of encrypted SMS feature we
don't get rid of it completely, but we make this feature only available as
a plug-in. By doing this we make sure that only those who REALLY need this
faeture will install it. 90% of TextSecure users won't.*
*- if that's not enuogh the plugin could only be available as a "beta"
app. That means to install it, you'll need to apply for it on Google+. So
only **1%** of TextSecure/Signal users will install it.*
*- or it could be only accessible on GitHub for people that know how to
compile it from source.*
I know some might say that this is against the "there are no power users"
philosophy that i highly agree with in general. But the Encrypted SMS
feature is really great, needed and it IS working however limited it is.
Abandoning it completely would open a big dark gap in encrypted
communications.
Just my 0,5€. I hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time.
best,
- jure
Moxie Marlinspike
2015-01-22 00:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.

- moxie
--
http://www.thoughtcrime.org
Steffen Märcker
2015-01-22 08:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Dear Moxie,

I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last months
clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list and friends
- that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only transport option. It
neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally delivers every message nor
c) does it always do so in a timely manner. Even though I am living in a
country with a good mobile infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this
siutation holds, dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.

Best regards,
Steffen
Post by Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
henri NOEL
2015-01-22 11:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Hey dudes,

I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved from
What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend, read
Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure close
source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best property
of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network which
are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.

Best regards,
Nri.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last months
clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list and
friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only transport
option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally delivers
every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely manner. Even
though I am living in a country with a good mobile infrastructure,
namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds, dropping encryption
on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Per Guth
2015-01-22 14:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Hello Nri,

it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.

All the best,
Per
Post by henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Steffen Märcker
2015-01-22 14:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Hello Per,

this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.

Cheers, Steffen
Post by Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Post by henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
a***@tinfoilh.at
2015-01-22 14:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Post by Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Post by henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Mark Senior
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
henri NOEL
2015-01-22 15:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Hey Followers,

I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and
against), collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be
how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants
to encrypt or not his message.

Cheers, Nri.
Post by a***@tinfoilh.at
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is
(still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS
channel is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user.
Not to mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the
encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from
GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere,
b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using
TextSecure is
that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage.
The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and
therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all.
We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Leandro Salvador
2015-01-27 14:19:49 UTC
Permalink
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS. I
understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS,
because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't
understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.

And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some
messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery
report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages
usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).

My two cents.

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by henri NOEL
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and against),
collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be how
to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants to
encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!)
very expensive when travelling.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is
considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention
that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
agrajaghh
2015-01-27 15:03:23 UTC
Permalink
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old discussions
here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the thread "UX / Usability
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html

best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted
SMS. I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about
encrypted SMS, because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS.
But I really doesn't understand why anybody arguments defending to
extinguish encrypted SMS. No gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in
the only one technology where TextSecure really has explicit
advantages: encrypted SMS.
some messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets
(delivery report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because
the messages usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and
against), collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic
point of view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem
shall be how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he
wants to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Post by a***@tinfoilh.at
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is
(still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS
channel is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end
user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Am 22. Januar 2015 15:22:23 MEZ, schrieb Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
On Do, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 , henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow
from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the
encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I
have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it
with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from
insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some
doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend
to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social
network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook
(eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no
dead-end
track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this
plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from
GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be
the only
transport option. It neither a) is available
everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so
in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a
good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this
siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from
using TextSecure is
that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted
storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and
therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption,
is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at
all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Leandro Salvador
2015-01-27 16:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Hi @agrajaghh,

I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you appointed, I
just am not sure that the solution for these problems is kill encrypted
SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are experienced as over SMS
as over DATA channel, don't?

While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by agrajaghh
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old discussions
here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the thread "UX / Usability
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS.
I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS,
because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't
understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some
messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery
report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages
usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by henri NOEL
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and against),
collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be
how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants to
encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!)
very expensive when travelling.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is
considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention
that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
agrajaghh
2015-01-27 16:33:58 UTC
Permalink
What else is the solution? As far as I know, the goal of open
whispersystems is to develop secure, user friendly software. And the
problems moxie mentioned with encrypted SMS have a really shitty UX...
So I think there are only three possible solutions:

1. Fix the UX issues (seems not to be possible)
2. leave encrypted SMS with this bad UX inside TS (contradicting the
development ideology / annoying to the average user who just want it to
work)
3. get rid of encrypted SMS

btw, TS has delivery receipts...
Post by Leandro Salvador
I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you appointed,
I just am not sure that the solution for these problems is kill
encrypted SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are
experienced as over SMS as over DATA channel, don't?
While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old
discussions here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the
thread "UX / Usability Issues and Thinking of the Future" about
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain
encrypted SMS. I understand when somebody doesn't argument
anything about encrypted SMS, because he/she doesn't use and
doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't understand why
anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No gain.
No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data
channel: some messages are not delivered; there is no double
check tickets (delivery report); a regular chat has high chances
to be freak because the messages usually lost the sequence (GCM
fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for
and against), collect argument and then find a solution to
conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and
philosophic point of view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem
shall be how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if
he wants to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Post by a***@tinfoilh.at
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming
is (still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the
SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective
of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive
feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Am 22. Januar 2015 15:22:23 MEZ, schrieb Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat
channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only
the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
On Do, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 , henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech
flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the
encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend
that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use
it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world
order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back
from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is
open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even
some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one
of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our
friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big
social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when
they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between
facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose
a no dead-end
track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this
plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling
from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough
to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available
everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do
so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country
with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this
siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a
drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me
from using TextSecure is
that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted
storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure,
and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end
encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on
you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
henri NOEL
2015-01-27 17:01:11 UTC
Permalink
agrajaghh ,

Did you consider the option to leave this part but change the app in
order to let this functionality as an option? If you consider than most
of the user do not play with the parameter of an app in order to fit
their need, you may put a default comportment without sms encryption and
let the option for people who want to encrypt their sms. Like this you
let developer the time to fix the problem or decrease the number of bug
to a reasonable quantity.
It's interesting to help random user but don't kill the good part of the
app because only a few use it.
By the way, when you'll check the code in order to delete sms
encryption, you can just add a boolean which is dependant from user
parameters and put it to 'false' by default.
Other point TS delivery request doesn't work with MMS when the 1st
message failed (often).
Nri.
Post by agrajaghh
What else is the solution? As far as I know, the goal of open
whispersystems is to develop secure, user friendly software. And the
problems moxie mentioned with encrypted SMS have a really shitty UX...
1. Fix the UX issues (seems not to be possible)
2. leave encrypted SMS with this bad UX inside TS (contradicting the
development ideology / annoying to the average user who just want it
to work)
3. get rid of encrypted SMS
btw, TS has delivery receipts...
Post by Leandro Salvador
I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you
appointed, I just am not sure that the solution for these problems is
kill encrypted SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are
experienced as over SMS as over DATA channel, don't?
While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old
discussions here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the
thread "UX / Usability Issues and Thinking of the Future" about
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain
encrypted SMS. I understand when somebody doesn't argument
anything about encrypted SMS, because he/she doesn't use and
doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't understand why
anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology
where TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data
channel: some messages are not delivered; there is no double
check tickets (delivery report); a regular chat has high chances
to be freak because the messages usually lost the sequence (GCM
fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html
),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for
and against), collect argument and then find a solution to
conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and
philosophic point of view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next
problem shall be how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose
if he wants to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Post by a***@tinfoilh.at
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that
roaming is (still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the
SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective
of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive
feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Am 22. Januar 2015 15:22:23 MEZ, schrieb Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat
channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only
the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
On Do, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 , henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech
flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the
encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend
that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use
it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world
order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it
back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is
open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even
some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one
of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our
friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big
social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when
they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between
facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose
a no dead-end
track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider
this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling
from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough
to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available
everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always
do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country
with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as
this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a
drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me
from using TextSecure is
that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted
storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure,
and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end
encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on
you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Tristan
2015-01-27 22:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Agrajaghh: Assuming the OS allows third-party applications to send custom
text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before display, there is
no reason a good programer can't do this with a user-friendly interface.
Even if a little creativity is necessary. Frankly, the same applies to
digital connections; if the message channel doesn't have features like
guaranteed message delivery natively it just means you have to do it
yourself. Have we all gotten so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands
for us everywhere, that we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our
own problems?

I know not everyone uses SMS, but there are a great many people (including
myself) who use it exclusively. I have a data connection, sure, but it's
metered where my SMS messages are not. The same applies to literally all of
my friends, or family for that matter (many of whom don't even have a data
plan).
Post by agrajaghh
What else is the solution? As far as I know, the goal of open
whispersystems is to develop secure, user friendly software. And the
problems moxie mentioned with encrypted SMS have a really shitty UX... So I
1. Fix the UX issues (seems not to be possible)
2. leave encrypted SMS with this bad UX inside TS (contradicting the
development ideology / annoying to the average user who just want it to
work)
3. get rid of encrypted SMS
btw, TS has delivery receipts...
I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you appointed, I
just am not sure that the solution for these problems is kill encrypted
SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are experienced as over SMS
as over DATA channel, don't?
While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by agrajaghh
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old discussions
here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the thread "UX / Usability
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS.
I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS,
because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't
understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some
messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery
report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages
usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by henri NOEL
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and
against), collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be
how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants
to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!)
very expensive when travelling.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel
is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to
mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
agrajaghh
2015-01-27 22:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan
Agrajaghh: Assuming the OS allows third-party applications to send
custom text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before
display, there is no reason a good programer can't do this with a
user-friendly interface. Even if a little creativity is necessary.
Frankly, the same applies to digital connections; if the message
channel doesn't have features like guaranteed message delivery
natively it just means you have to do it yourself. Have we all gotten
so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands for us everywhere, that
we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our own problems?
How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?
(issue 3 mentioned by moxie)

I guess if you want to convince the devs to keep encrypted SMS (if its
not already too late) you should come up with some ideas how to
fix/improve the encrypted SMS usability issues. I don't think just
repeating the same arguments from github and this mailinglist again will
change their mind...
Post by Tristan
So far I didn't read from somebody arguing in favour of
abadoninng encrypted SMS feature who at least acknowledged these two
*/ Encrypted SMS has fundamental design flaws. Let's get rid of it to
fix this.
*/ Data connection or mobile internet is not an option at many places on
earth. Let's keep encrypted SMS in favour of the concerned ones.
Thats not true, I guess everybody understands that a second channel
would be great (if its seamlessly working)

best regards
Leandro Salvador
2015-01-28 01:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Buddies, I really don't understand what are these problems that would
happen with encrypted SMS that wouldn't happen with encrypted DATA channel.
Really, it's not rhetoric. I'm a TS hard user, invited dozens of friends to
use TS and made dozens of different tests. TS yet some bugs that are
unacceptable to regular users, and as far as I know, it has nothing to see
with SMS: synchronization failed (over DATA, not over SMS!), duplication of
chats to a same contact (one for SMS, other for DATA), an species of black
hole of DATA messages (message sent over DATA that never arrives to the
destination), you know.

I really would like to be convinced that, specifically, encrypted SMS is a
great problem, and I really follow this subject here and at GitHub... but
except for the fact that iPhone doesn't allow TS manages SMS, I'm unable to
understand the gain that kill this technology will enhance to TS.

=/

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by agrajaghh
Post by Tristan
Agrajaghh: Assuming the OS allows third-party applications to send
custom text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before
display, there is no reason a good programer can't do this with a
user-friendly interface. Even if a little creativity is necessary.
Frankly, the same applies to digital connections; if the message
channel doesn't have features like guaranteed message delivery
natively it just means you have to do it yourself. Have we all gotten
so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands for us everywhere, that
we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our own problems?
How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?
(issue 3 mentioned by moxie)
I guess if you want to convince the devs to keep encrypted SMS (if its
not already too late) you should come up with some ideas how to
fix/improve the encrypted SMS usability issues. I don't think just
repeating the same arguments from github and this mailinglist again will
change their mind...
Post by Tristan
So far I didn't read from somebody arguing in favour of
abadoninng encrypted SMS feature who at least acknowledged these two
*/ Encrypted SMS has fundamental design flaws. Let's get rid of it to
fix this.
*/ Data connection or mobile internet is not an option at many places on
earth. Let's keep encrypted SMS in favour of the concerned ones.
Thats not true, I guess everybody understands that a second channel
would be great (if its seamlessly working)
best regards
Markus Törnqvist
2015-01-29 07:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leandro Salvador
except for the fact that iPhone doesn't allow TS manages SMS, I'm unable to
understand the gain that kill this technology will enhance to TS.
They don't work on iPhone? What does it look like for an iPhone user
if she receives an encrypted TS SMS by accident? Do the users need
to be aware of the counterparts' phone platforms? That would obviously suck.
--
mjt
Jonas Meurer
2015-01-29 10:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Leandro Salvador
except for the fact that iPhone doesn't allow TS manages SMS, I'm unable to
understand the gain that kill this technology will enhance to TS.
They don't work on iPhone? What does it look like for an iPhone user
if she receives an encrypted TS SMS by accident? Do the users need
to be aware of the counterparts' phone platforms? That would obviously suck.
TS simply doesn't send encrypted SMS to iphone users. For encrypted SMS
you first need to exchange keys, which happens automatically after your
first SMS to another TS user. This will never happen with an iphone contact.

The only szenario that I can imagine which leads to encrypted SMS being
sent to an iphone is that somebody used TS on an android phone before
and silently put her/his SIM card into an iphone now. Result will be the
same as if you uninstall TS on android: you receive encrypted SMS with
random-looking cypher text. All you can do in those cases is to stop the
private connection with such contacts in TS. But admitted, you need to
know about that change first.

Cheers,
jonas
Markus Törnqvist
2015-01-29 10:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonas Meurer
TS simply doesn't send encrypted SMS to iphone users. For encrypted SMS
you first need to exchange keys, which happens automatically after your
first SMS to another TS user. This will never happen with an iphone contact.
Won't the first SMS look garbled and meaningless or does TS exchange
client information and store it?

I started looking into Axolotl and TS some time ago, for the purpose of
implementing the protocol and a client[1], but it's been on and off (mostly
off). Haven't bumped into code exchanging client info yet, so it must
be garbled on reception and no automatic key exchange reply.
Post by Jonas Meurer
The only szenario that I can imagine which leads to encrypted SMS being
sent to an iphone is that somebody used TS on an android phone before
and silently put her/his SIM card into an iphone now. Result will be the
same as if you uninstall TS on android: you receive encrypted SMS with
random-looking cypher text. All you can do in those cases is to stop the
private connection with such contacts in TS. But admitted, you need to
know about that change first.
This is not implausible.

What about not using SMS? The keys remain on the Android phone, and the
messages delivered over APN are still encoded for the wrong key?

[1] There was a very good Whatsapp client for the Jolla phone until
Whatsapp got on to it and blocked 3rd party clients. Apparently TS was
somehow involved in WA's encryption, but I don't trust them and would
like to see a native TS client one day ;)

Cheers!
--
mjt
Jonas Meurer
2015-01-29 10:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi Markus,
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Jonas Meurer
TS simply doesn't send encrypted SMS to iphone users. For encrypted SMS
you first need to exchange keys, which happens automatically after your
first SMS to another TS user. This will never happen with an iphone contact.
Won't the first SMS look garbled and meaningless or does TS exchange
client information and store it?
SMS is unencrypted by default in TS. You need to establish a secure
connection before sending encrypted SMS. This is done by exchanging
keys, either on purpose or automatically after TS detected another TS
client by whitespace tagging in an unencrypted SMS.
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Jonas Meurer
The only szenario that I can imagine which leads to encrypted SMS being
sent to an iphone is that somebody used TS on an android phone before
and silently put her/his SIM card into an iphone now. Result will be the
same as if you uninstall TS on android: you receive encrypted SMS with
random-looking cypher text. All you can do in those cases is to stop the
private connection with such contacts in TS. But admitted, you need to
know about that change first.
This is not implausible.
What about not using SMS? The keys remain on the Android phone, and the
messages delivered over APN are still encoded for the wrong key?
All I wrote was about SMS delivery. I don't know how TS maintains and
exchanges keys for push contacts, as I don't use the push service yet
(unreliable, google services required).

Cheers,
jonas
Angel Stoleski
2015-01-29 15:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Why don't just leave the sms encryption as it is... Push = unreliable
Post by Jonas Meurer
Hi Markus,
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Jonas Meurer
TS simply doesn't send encrypted SMS to iphone users. For encrypted SMS
you first need to exchange keys, which happens automatically after your
first SMS to another TS user. This will never happen with an iphone
contact.
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Won't the first SMS look garbled and meaningless or does TS exchange
client information and store it?
SMS is unencrypted by default in TS. You need to establish a secure
connection before sending encrypted SMS. This is done by exchanging
keys, either on purpose or automatically after TS detected another TS
client by whitespace tagging in an unencrypted SMS.
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Jonas Meurer
The only szenario that I can imagine which leads to encrypted SMS being
sent to an iphone is that somebody used TS on an android phone before
and silently put her/his SIM card into an iphone now. Result will be the
same as if you uninstall TS on android: you receive encrypted SMS with
random-looking cypher text. All you can do in those cases is to stop the
private connection with such contacts in TS. But admitted, you need to
know about that change first.
This is not implausible.
What about not using SMS? The keys remain on the Android phone, and the
messages delivered over APN are still encoded for the wrong key?
All I wrote was about SMS delivery. I don't know how TS maintains and
exchanges keys for push contacts, as I don't use the push service yet
(unreliable, google services required).
Cheers,
jonas
Tristan
2015-01-28 00:01:31 UTC
Permalink
"How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?"
I don't care if you're using SMS, data, or something else. If the user
uninstalls the app, there is absolutely nothing you can do to help them
locally. You can only control for so much user stupidity, at some point you
just have to accept that.

As far as providing solutions go, I fall back on one of my previous points.
Being hard is a really stupid reason to remove significant functionality
from an app, assuming you care about people actually using it. In this case
we are talking about the entire, original, point of TextSecure. If
anything, it makes far more sense to break the data functionality out into
its own app instead of pulling the carpet out from everyone already using
it.
Post by agrajaghh
Post by Tristan
Agrajaghh: Assuming the OS allows third-party applications to send
custom text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before
display, there is no reason a good programer can't do this with a
user-friendly interface. Even if a little creativity is necessary.
Frankly, the same applies to digital connections; if the message
channel doesn't have features like guaranteed message delivery
natively it just means you have to do it yourself. Have we all gotten
so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands for us everywhere, that
we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our own problems?
How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?
(issue 3 mentioned by moxie)
I guess if you want to convince the devs to keep encrypted SMS (if its
not already too late) you should come up with some ideas how to
fix/improve the encrypted SMS usability issues. I don't think just
repeating the same arguments from github and this mailinglist again will
change their mind...
Post by Tristan
So far I didn't read from somebody arguing in favour of
abadoninng encrypted SMS feature who at least acknowledged these two
*/ Encrypted SMS has fundamental design flaws. Let's get rid of it to
fix this.
*/ Data connection or mobile internet is not an option at many places on
earth. Let's keep encrypted SMS in favour of the concerned ones.
Thats not true, I guess everybody understands that a second channel
would be great (if its seamlessly working)
best regards
Corvin Russell
2015-01-29 06:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Well I, having started out a skeptic about the abandonment of encrypted
SMS, read the old thread on this list and am now convinced. I don't think
it should be maintained.

If there are communities of people desperately relying on this
functionality, perhaps they should fork their own client.
Post by Tristan
"How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?"
I don't care if you're using SMS, data, or something else. If the user
uninstalls the app, there is absolutely nothing you can do to help them
locally. You can only control for so much user stupidity, at some point you
just have to accept that.
As far as providing solutions go, I fall back on one of my previous
points. Being hard is a really stupid reason to remove significant
functionality from an app, assuming you care about people actually using
it. In this case we are talking about the entire, original, point of
TextSecure. If anything, it makes far more sense to break the data
functionality out into its own app instead of pulling the carpet out from
everyone already using it.
Post by agrajaghh
Post by Tristan
Agrajaghh: Assuming the OS allows third-party applications to send
custom text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before
display, there is no reason a good programer can't do this with a
user-friendly interface. Even if a little creativity is necessary.
Frankly, the same applies to digital connections; if the message
channel doesn't have features like guaranteed message delivery
natively it just means you have to do it yourself. Have we all gotten
so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands for us everywhere, that
we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our own problems?
How can a third-party app intercept incoming SMS if it got uninstalled?
(issue 3 mentioned by moxie)
I guess if you want to convince the devs to keep encrypted SMS (if its
not already too late) you should come up with some ideas how to
fix/improve the encrypted SMS usability issues. I don't think just
repeating the same arguments from github and this mailinglist again will
change their mind...
Post by Tristan
So far I didn't read from somebody arguing in favour of
abadoninng encrypted SMS feature who at least acknowledged these two
*/ Encrypted SMS has fundamental design flaws. Let's get rid of it to
fix this.
*/ Data connection or mobile internet is not an option at many places on
earth. Let's keep encrypted SMS in favour of the concerned ones.
Thats not true, I guess everybody understands that a second channel
would be great (if its seamlessly working)
best regards
--
Twitter: @corvinr <https://twitter.com/corvinr>
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/115459943980453987525
My PGP key is here
<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x48CBE0180B9915EF>.

Help restore privacy and freedom of association for everyone by using Signal
<https://itunes.apple.com/app/id874139669> on iPhone and TextSecure
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms&hl=en>
and RedPhone
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.redphone&hl=en>
on
Android.
Tristan
2015-01-27 22:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Agrajaghh: Asuming the OS allows third-party applications to send custom
text in an SMS, and to intercept incoming messages before display, there is
no reason a good programer can't do this with a user-friendly interface.
Even if a little creativity is necessary. Frankly, the same applies to
digital connections; if the message channel doesn't have features like
guaranteed message delivery natively it just means you have to do it
yourself. Have we all gotten so used to fancy libraries that hold our hands
for us everywhere, that we've forgotten it's totally possible to solve our
own problems?

I know not everyone uses SMS, but there are a great many people (including
myself) who use it exclusively. I have a data connection, sure, but it's
metered where my SMS messages are not. The same applies to literally all of
my friends, or family for that matter (many of whom don't even have a data
plan).
Post by agrajaghh
What else is the solution? As far as I know, the goal of open
whispersystems is to develop secure, user friendly software. And the
problems moxie mentioned with encrypted SMS have a really shitty UX... So I
1. Fix the UX issues (seems not to be possible)
2. leave encrypted SMS with this bad UX inside TS (contradicting the
development ideology / annoying to the average user who just want it to
work)
3. get rid of encrypted SMS
btw, TS has delivery receipts...
I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you appointed, I
just am not sure that the solution for these problems is kill encrypted
SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are experienced as over SMS
as over DATA channel, don't?
While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by agrajaghh
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old discussions
here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the thread "UX / Usability
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS.
I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS,
because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't
understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some
messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery
report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages
usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by henri NOEL
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and
against), collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be
how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants
to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!)
very expensive when travelling.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel
is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to
mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Jonas Meurer
2015-01-27 22:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi list,
Post by agrajaghh
What else is the solution? As far as I know, the goal of open
whispersystems is to develop secure, user friendly software. And the
problems moxie mentioned with encrypted SMS have a really shitty UX...
1. Fix the UX issues (seems not to be possible)
2. leave encrypted SMS with this bad UX inside TS (contradicting the
development ideology / annoying to the average user who just want it to
work)
3. get rid of encrypted SMS
in theory I agree: encrypted SMS has flaws that are hard or even
impossible to fix. The protocol is not designed for encryption key
exchange and management. If world was perfect, everyone would have a
data plan and stable internet connection at all places on world [and TS
communication would need google push services and and and]. But world is
not perfect (yet), so for now there are three possible solutions:

1/ get rid of encrypted SMS and leave everyone without stable data
connection out in the cold.
2/ keep encrypted SMS and fix (or workaround) the UX issues as much as
possible.
3/ keep encrypted SMS the way it is and live with a good working (not
perfect) solution and some flaws.

I believe that the past discussions on github and on this mailinglist
made clear that quite a few textsecure users would prefer options 2 or
3. I understand that particularly moxie has a different point of view.
And after all it's his (and the other whispersystems devs) project. They
can decide whatever they want.

I respect moxies opinion and I see his arguments. I guess that holds for
one or two other people arguing against his perspective in this
discussion. But for now there are two strong arguments standing against
each other. So far I didn't read from somebody arguing in favour of
abadoninng encrypted SMS feature who at least acknowledged these two
opposing arguments. Which are:

*/ Encrypted SMS has fundamental design flaws. Let's get rid of it to
fix this.
*/ Data connection or mobile internet is not an option at many places on
earth. Let's keep encrypted SMS in favour of the concerned ones.

Again for the record: even in germany, a country with very good GSM
coverage, mobile internet is not available everywhere. As soon as you
leave the area of cities, GSM without internet is your only option. The
same holds for northern and southern africa where GSM coverage is quite
good usually but mobile internet is not available at many playes (I
don't know about the middle of this continent, never been there yet).
Post by agrajaghh
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old
discussions here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the thread
"UX / Usability Issues and Thinking of the Future" about some issues
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service
and check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is
absurd.
I'm not an expert here at all, but I don't know of any asynchron
encryption that doesn't need a key exchange as first step. To my
knowledge, even TS over push exchanges keys if you initiate a
conversation with a new contact, no? And I never understood how MITM
attacks can be prevented in case of automatical key exchange without
manual fingerprint comparison. But that might just be due to my limited
knowledge about axolotl magic :)

Cheers,
jonas
Post by agrajaghh
btw, TS has delivery receipts...
I really had read all it, and agree with these problems you appointed,
I just am not sure that the solution for these problems is kill
encrypted SMS. These problems you appointed, by the way, are
experienced as over SMS as over DATA channel, don't?
While GCM is not trustable enough, and while TS doesn't have delivery
receipts, I think kill encrypted SMS is a head shot against TS.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
I have the feeling a lot of you didn't read through the old
discussions here at the mailing list. To quote moxie from the
thread "UX / Usability Issues and Thinking of the Future" about
1) Initiate a key exchange with someone when they're not in service and
check out the UX. Even having to do a key exchange at all is absurd.
2) When you have an established session with someone, reinstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
3) When you have an established session with someone, uninstall
TextSecure and see what happens next time they send you a message.
These are just the three most common edge cases, but there are many
more. There's no way to ever make them seamless.
- moxie
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00020.html
best regards
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain
encrypted SMS. I understand when somebody doesn't argument
anything about encrypted SMS, because he/she doesn't use and
doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't understand why
anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No gain.
No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data
channel: some messages are not delivered; there is no double
check tickets (delivery report); a regular chat has high chances
to be freak because the messages usually lost the sequence (GCM
fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html
),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for
and against), collect argument and then find a solution to
conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and
philosophic point of view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem
shall be how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if
he wants to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Post by a***@tinfoilh.at
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming
is (still!) very expensive when travelling.
Post by Steffen Märcker
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the
SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective
of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive
feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Am 22. Januar 2015 15:22:23 MEZ, schrieb Per Guth
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat
channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only
the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
On Do, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 , henri NOEL
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech
flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the
encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend
that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use
it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world
order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back
from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is
open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even
some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one
of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our
friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big
social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when
they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between
facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose
a no dead-end
track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this
plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling
from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough
to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available
everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do
so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country
with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this
siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a
drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me
from using TextSecure is
that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted
storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure,
and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end
encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on
you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Tristan
2015-01-27 15:58:59 UTC
Permalink
For the record "it's hard" isn't a very smart reason to remove an
application's cornerstone feature.

I can't help but agree with Leandro, encrypted SMS was the whole point of
TextSecure originally and the one feature that made it stand out for me.
The general move towards using the data connection over SMS has already
caused me to lose my interest in the client, that's just not what I wanted
it for.

Just my $0.02

- Tristan

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Leandro Salvador <
Post by Leandro Salvador
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS.
I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS,
because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't
understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No
gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where
TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some
messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery
report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages
usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by henri NOEL
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and against),
collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of
view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be
how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants to
encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Another drawback from dropping encrypted SMS is that roaming is (still!)
very expensive when travelling.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is
considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention
that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Alexander Dietrich
2015-01-27 16:08:12 UTC
Permalink
It's the exact opposite for me. I never had any interest in SMS
functionality and turned it off right away. None of my contacts uses SMS
either.

Just my $0.02

Best regards,

Alexander

---
PGP Key: https://dietrich.cx/pgp | 0x727A756DC55A356B
For the record "it's hard" isn't a very smart reason to remove an application's cornerstone feature.
I can't help but agree with Leandro, encrypted SMS was the whole point of TextSecure originally and the one feature that made it stand out for me. The general move towards using the data connection over SMS has already caused me to lose my interest in the client, that's just not what I wanted it for.
Just my $0.02
- Tristan
I understand when somebody arguments defending to maintain encrypted SMS. I understand when somebody doesn't argument anything about encrypted SMS, because he/she doesn't use and doesn't care about SMS. But I really doesn't understand why anybody arguments defending to extinguish encrypted SMS. No gain. No benefits. Just a downgrade in the only one technology where TextSecure really has explicit advantages: encrypted SMS.
And as all you know, TS isn't 100% reliable yet over data channel: some messages are not delivered; there is no double check tickets (delivery report); a regular chat has high chances to be freak because the messages usually lost the sequence (GCM fault, I guess).
My two cents.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Hey Followers,
I've seen arguments for keeping sms encrypted channel (Nb https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html [1] ),
maybe it shall be positive to put 2 discussions branch (for and against), collect argument and then find a solution to conclude ?
As far I've readen the flow, there is technical and philosophic point of view that we should not put together.
Maybe a fork could be another solution.. but the next problem shall be how to not divide the social network too ?
For my side, it shall be better to let the end-user choose if he wants to encrypt or not his message.
Cheers, Nri.
Hello Per,
this still does not explain why dropping encryption on the SMS channel is considered reasonable from the perspective of an end user. Not to mention that this is an exclusive feature AFAIK.
Cheers, Steffen
Hello Nri,
it's just a slight misunderstanding. The regular chat channel (= via
the internet like WhatsApp) will stay encrypted. Only the encryption of
SMS will be dropped.
All the best,
Per
Hey dudes,
I m new to the list so I m just getting the speech flow from today.
I'am a bit afraid of the last talk upon drop the encrypted channel of
Textsecure because as for me and for the friend that I have moved
from What's App
(yes you have to be a militant if you want to use it with friend,
read Machiavel upon how it's hard to change world order)
it was one of the strongest argument to get it back from insecure
close source app.
Not all my friend are confident with what is open-source app,
encryption, regular data encrypted backup, even some doesn't know E.
Snowden..
So it shall be a really big mistake to remove one of the best
property of the app that we use to convince our friend to test a new
app.
Then how do you want to move your friend from big social network
which are by the way really user friend?
How to convince them to change their habits when they do have a
messenger app which satisfy all their current need?
By the way I ve readen collaboration between facebook (eg What's app)
and Whisper about point-to-point encryption so
in order to be a credible concurrent why to choose a no dead-end track?
Thx in advance for your reply.
Best regards,
Nri.
Dear Moxie,
I can only ask you to carefully reconsider this plan. The last
months clearly showed me and others - telling from GitHub, this list
and friends - that GMS is not reliable enough to be the only
transport option. It neither a) is available everywhere, b) finally
delivers every message nor c) does it always do so in a timely
manner. Even though I am living in a country with a good mobile
infrastructure, namely Germany. As long as this siutation holds,
dropping encryption on the SMS channel is a drawback.
Best regards,
Steffen
Am .01.2015, 01:41 Uhr, schrieb Moxie Marlinspike
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that
it's an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of
people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I
enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero.
Then this change won't have any effect on you at all. We're
eliminating
support for encrypted SMS, not SMS.
- moxie
Links:
------
[1]
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/whispersystems/2014-07/msg00050.html
Erin Comparri
2015-01-22 00:41:45 UTC
Permalink
I thought that one of the main features of TextSecure is that it offers
secure and usable crypto. Why would users want to use this product if one
of the biggest draws is removed to a plug-in? How does restricting access
ease the burden on developers? Am I missing something?
Post by Mark Senior
I think that would make the feature mostly accessible to the people who
least need it.
Stereotype ahead: "Power users" (is this a taboo term in this context?)
are, I would guess, the people most likely to have generous data plans.
Those most likely to have talk-and-text-only plans would be the users for
whom any obstacles as described would simply result in their not using
TextSecure.
Personally, the security benefit to me from using TextSecure is that it's
an SMS app with locally encrypted storage. The number of people I
communicate with who use TextSecure, and therefore with whom I enjoy the
additional benefit of end-to-end encryption, is zero. I wouldn't be
surprised at all if my situation was actually that of a largish percentage
of users.
Is there a way of gathering statistics on the percentage of TextSecure
users in similar situations? Who have installed the app and never sent a
push message, presumably because they had nobody to send one to?
Regards
Mark
Post by #359
1. We all know that maintaining encrypted SMS feature in TextSecure is
a big pain for developers and also (some) users, so I won't be wasting more
words about this.
2. We also know that many users are (wanted or not) stuck with this
feature and the words about increased push messaging usage among Android
users worldwide are of no help.
*- when the time comes to finally get rid of encrypted SMS feature we
don't get rid of it completely, but we make this feature only available as
a plug-in. By doing this we make sure that only those who REALLY need this
faeture will install it. 90% of TextSecure users won't.*
*- if that's not enuogh the plugin could only be available as a "beta"
app. That means to install it, you'll need to apply for it on Google+. So
only **1%** of TextSecure/Signal users will install it.*
*- or it could be only accessible on GitHub for people that know how to
compile it from source.*
I know some might say that this is against the "there are no power users"
philosophy that i highly agree with in general. But the Encrypted SMS
feature is really great, needed and it IS working however limited it is.
Abandoning it completely would open a big dark gap in encrypted
communications.
Just my 0,5€. I hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time.
best,
- jure
David Gessel
2015-03-11 10:41:29 UTC
Permalink
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS, could you please give those of us who really do not want to go with you the option of continuing to use (and not being automatically upgraded away from) that feature in an abandonware version?



While it would certainly be nice if it were technically possible to fix iOS and detect deinstalls and otherwise streamline and simplify the use of encrypted SMS, it is my opinion that a genuinely useful and irreplaceable security tool is being lost in the quest for a flawless user experience and that is suboptimal.

It is certainly true that many secure applications have been hampered, perhaps even hobbled, in their adoption rates by excessively complex processes and features that only a true enthusiast could love, but when we give up an essential feature for a little convenience I think we are taking the mandate too far.

Here in Iraq (where I've been for the last 4 years), the data service is cut frequently leaving only voice and SMS. I had good success moving people to TS from whatsapp during those outages, and even convincing people who had both iOS and Android to favor their Android devices thanks to TS. It was a really lovely and seamless experience when secure communications persisted through network outages and moving from wifi to the crippled cellular network. No other application did this.

This change breaks an essential encrypted communication channel. SMS is the dominant, most reliable text coms method - and text is essential to those of us who are language challenged (not that cellular voice is secure).

Further, I read the dismissal of "expensive" data services on the blog and while I do not have statistical data to back up my argument either, my experience is that very few of my coworkers here can afford the $20/month pre-paid data service. Most have cell service and use data only on WiFi. TS used to allow seamless secure reach. Without encrypted SMS, that's no longer possible for the vast majority: in my team, about 1:10 of the smart phone users have data service and the group is fairly well paid by local standards. In my observations, people only use feature phones when their sub-standard smart phone breaks, dumped in this market because there are no warranties or returns, as they save up for another one.

And, speaking with a colleague who has spent the last 5 years in Afghanistan, the same is true there: key employees and westerners have post-paid data-inclusive plans, but the vast majority of employees and locals have pre-paid plans that include sufficient voice and SMS for their needs but can't afford data (which is usually 2x the cost of basic access). They have mostly moved from feature phones (which were overwhelmingly dominant when I was there) to smart phones, but use the "smart" features at the office where there is WiFi. (In Iraq, many of our employees pay for internet service at home, but the average citizen does not; in Afghanistan it seems even our main employees do not buy data service at home).

I think you're misinterpreting the data on uptake of overlay services. Tons of people here also use What'sApp and Vibr, but on wifi, not on cellular data plans and they still use voice and sms and I have not seen an unlimited data plan outside of the US. I will admit I've only had one South American SIM, so my data is incomplete, but in Brazil, Kenya, Italy, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the UAE, and Lebanon, where I have bought and used SIMs, every one comes with voice and SMS services and data services cost extra, 2-4x the cost of the SIM with basic provisioning in most markets.

If the mandate is to create a push services app that occupies a usage space between SMS (less iOS users) and data-only jabber/OTR services that is as easy to use as possible (and I'm not suggesting this is an invalid goal for some), I for one would very much appreciate breaking TextSecure away as a stand-alone app that functions just like the old textsecure did, or just leave the last encrypted SMS version available on the app store under a different name.

I suspect you'll find most users prefer encrypted SMS with some minor compatibility headaches but very reliable delivery to an application without the compatibility headaches that doesn't support secure coms over SMS.

Further, a mere one roundtrip's worth of "friction" always felt amazingly "right" to the users and actually lights up people's faces (because they see some positive indication that "encryption" was happening).

Detecting encrypted messages, or the lack thereof, doesn't seem like nearly as hard a problem as creating them in the first place.

State-run telcos (and, of course, all Telcos, state owned or not) are swimming in metadata from everyone who's carrying a phone. The only way to minimize that data is to use phones without a cellular radio at all (or one where the radio has been physically disabled). Further, push does not fix the metadata leaks and data-mode communications only start to fix the problems when their Tor-ified. In addressing that case, it seems like ChatSecure (or Xabber) is a better option than TextSecure. By supporting encrypted SMS, TextSecure had a clearly defined, unique use case.

I accept that it is hard to make and maintain secure SMS, but that's the sort of magic 31337 crypto experts pull off.

It is really annoying to have an app I don't want to update because it breaks the "update all" convenience and requires waiting around and doing them one at a time. I am sure it will be too tedious for the users I correspond with to freeze at 2.6, so the update that breaks encrypted SMS will be uninstall time, alas.
Angel Stoleski
2015-03-11 10:50:31 UTC
Permalink
If encrypted sms are abandoned many justice-warriors will be left down,
because there are parts of the world where sms is more used than data, and
will lose war against secret services.
Post by David Gessel
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS, could
you please give those of us who really do not want to go with you the
option of continuing to use (and not being automatically upgraded away
from) that feature in an abandonware version?
While it would certainly be nice if it were technically possible to fix
iOS and detect deinstalls and otherwise streamline and simplify the use of
encrypted SMS, it is my opinion that a genuinely useful and irreplaceable
security tool is being lost in the quest for a flawless user experience and
that is suboptimal.
It is certainly true that many secure applications have been hampered,
perhaps even hobbled, in their adoption rates by excessively complex
processes and features that only a true enthusiast could love, but when we
give up an essential feature for a little convenience I think we are taking
the mandate too far.
Here in Iraq (where I've been for the last 4 years), the data service is
cut frequently leaving only voice and SMS. I had good success moving
people to TS from whatsapp during those outages, and even convincing people
who had both iOS and Android to favor their Android devices thanks to TS.
It was a really lovely and seamless experience when secure communications
persisted through network outages and moving from wifi to the crippled
cellular network. No other application did this.
This change breaks an essential encrypted communication channel. SMS is
the dominant, most reliable text coms method - and text is essential to
those of us who are language challenged (not that cellular voice is secure).
Further, I read the dismissal of "expensive" data services on the blog and
while I do not have statistical data to back up my argument either, my
experience is that very few of my coworkers here can afford the $20/month
pre-paid data service. Most have cell service and use data only on WiFi.
TS used to allow seamless secure reach. Without encrypted SMS, that's no
longer possible for the vast majority: in my team, about 1:10 of the smart
phone users have data service and the group is fairly well paid by local
standards. In my observations, people only use feature phones when their
sub-standard smart phone breaks, dumped in this market because there are no
warranties or returns, as they save up for another one.
And, speaking with a colleague who has spent the last 5 years in
Afghanistan, the same is true there: key employees and westerners have
post-paid data-inclusive plans, but the vast majority of employees and
locals have pre-paid plans that include sufficient voice and SMS for their
needs but can't afford data (which is usually 2x the cost of basic
access). They have mostly moved from feature phones (which were
overwhelmingly dominant when I was there) to smart phones, but use the
"smart" features at the office where there is WiFi. (In Iraq, many of our
employees pay for internet service at home, but the average citizen does
not; in Afghanistan it seems even our main employees do not buy data
service at home).
I think you're misinterpreting the data on uptake of overlay services.
Tons of people here also use What'sApp and Vibr, but on wifi, not on
cellular data plans and they still use voice and sms and I have not seen an
unlimited data plan outside of the US. I will admit I've only had one
South American SIM, so my data is incomplete, but in Brazil, Kenya, Italy,
the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the UAE, and Lebanon, where I have
bought and used SIMs, every one comes with voice and SMS services and data
services cost extra, 2-4x the cost of the SIM with basic provisioning in
most markets.
If the mandate is to create a push services app that occupies a usage
space between SMS (less iOS users) and data-only jabber/OTR services that
is as easy to use as possible (and I'm not suggesting this is an invalid
goal for some), I for one would very much appreciate breaking TextSecure
away as a stand-alone app that functions just like the old textsecure did,
or just leave the last encrypted SMS version available on the app store
under a different name.
I suspect you'll find most users prefer encrypted SMS with some minor
compatibility headaches but very reliable delivery to an application
without the compatibility headaches that doesn't support secure coms over
SMS.
Further, a mere one roundtrip's worth of "friction" always felt amazingly
"right" to the users and actually lights up people's faces (because they
see some positive indication that "encryption" was happening).
Detecting encrypted messages, or the lack thereof, doesn't seem like
nearly as hard a problem as creating them in the first place.
State-run telcos (and, of course, all Telcos, state owned or not) are
swimming in metadata from everyone who's carrying a phone. The only way to
minimize that data is to use phones without a cellular radio at all (or one
where the radio has been physically disabled). Further, push does not fix
the metadata leaks and data-mode communications only start to fix the
problems when their Tor-ified. In addressing that case, it seems like
ChatSecure (or Xabber) is a better option than TextSecure. By supporting
encrypted SMS, TextSecure had a clearly defined, unique use case.
I accept that it is hard to make and maintain secure SMS, but that's the
sort of magic 31337 crypto experts pull off.
It is really annoying to have an app I don't want to update because it
breaks the "update all" convenience and requires waiting around and doing
them one at a time. I am sure it will be too tedious for the users I
correspond with to freeze at 2.6, so the update that breaks encrypted SMS
will be uninstall time, alas.
Markus Törnqvist
2015-03-11 11:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angel Stoleski
If encrypted sms are abandoned many justice-warriors will be left down,
because there are parts of the world where sms is more used than data, and
will lose war against secret services.
Isn't the obvious solution that whoever has time for this forks the
repository, drops iPhone support and calls the effort SMSSecure for Android?

Even though this is about severe API limitations and other objective technical
reasons, also adopting more platforms for more people is (unfortunately?) a
market advantage. You could surely argue there are countries where SMS is more
important, but it can't be helped until all the other issues go away.
--
mjt
Olaf Leidinger
2015-03-11 11:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Isn't the obvious solution that whoever has time for this forks the
repository, drops iPhone support and calls the effort SMSSecure for Android?
Or disable SMS by default and warn about possible issues when enabling
it.
#359
2015-03-11 11:58:38 UTC
Permalink
there's already an sms-only fork of TS on the play store. i'm not using it, i don't know if it's trustworthy or not and i don't encourage anybody to use it. i just thought that you should know about it's existence.
Post by Markus Törnqvist
Post by Angel Stoleski
If encrypted sms are abandoned many justice-warriors will be left
down,
Post by Angel Stoleski
because there are parts of the world where sms is more used than data,
and
Post by Angel Stoleski
will lose war against secret services.
Isn't the obvious solution that whoever has time for this forks the
repository, drops iPhone support and calls the effort SMSSecure for Android?
Even though this is about severe API limitations and other objective technical
reasons, also adopting more platforms for more people is
(unfortunately?) a
market advantage. You could surely argue there are countries where SMS is more
important, but it can't be helped until all the other issues go away.
--
mjt
- 359
m***@gmx.de
2015-03-11 11:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for writing this!
I see it the same way. SMS should stay!
I have 2G/month data and unlimited SMS, so SMS costs me nothing. But
that is not the point. I use TS since ca December 2013 and never had
issues until this January when receiving messages from other TS users
stopped working. I absolutely wanted to stay with TS, but i was not able
to get it working again. The only way i am able to still use it, is to
unregister my phone number and use good old SMS. So if you stop
supporting SMS i am out.

BTW: http://support.whispersystems.org is not much help either although
i was told on guthub to go there if i had problems with TS.

http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/questions/11298848-push-transport-doesn-t-work-last-4-5-days

Cheers
q***@hush.com
2015-03-11 13:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

Thanks for raising this! I have been trying to send the below email to
***@whispersystems.org for a few days without success before
realising about this mailing list.

The TL;DR version is, I agree that SMS transport layer is important,
an essential capability for my usage scenario and an important
differentiator in what is becoming a vast amount of secure messaging
of data-alternatives.

----
Hello,

I am a big fan of the vision of Open Whisper Systems and the apps you
are creating. One of the reasons I am a fan has been the capability
to use SMS as a transport layer for the encrypted messages. I read
the blog post from Friday, and while I do not agree with all of your
reasoning and am naturally less than happy with your conclusion, they
are your products and it is your decision to make - I am merely a
user and a donor.
I am not going to try to change your minds, I am sure a lot of
thought and research went in to the decision, but I would like to
explain my use case to see if it is possible to persuade you to break
out the SMS capability or point me towards another trustworthy
software with this capability.
Looking at the arguments in the post, you present four reasons to
stop supporting SMS and two to keep the support. They are not really
presented in a manner applicable to my use case. For my use case the
primary consideration is security of content, secondly reliability
with or without reliable internet access (due to travels in multiple
countries and battery drain). After those key concerns comes security
of metadata and cost. iOS compatibility is for me a only nice to
have-feature, but I have moved away from BYOD to increase security.
Naturally, I cannot comment on the "holding us back-reason", it is
for you to assess and prioritise.
So from my perspective, the reasons can be summarised like this:
1) Frictionless and seamless, after the initial installation and as
everyone should always use TextSecure, this is not an issue for me.
2) iOS, if is necessary for full functionality I have no issue with
requiring a certain OS
3) Metadata, problematic but content is much more important to secure
4) Holding back, no comment
5) Cost, having options reduces cost, especially when, for example,
roaming data is prohibitively costly
6) Reliability, having options increases reliability, especially when
power consumption and cost can minimise access to internet
I understand the wish to bring frictionless encrypted messaging to as
many as possible - however I wish it was possible to also support
this more specialised use case. Is it possible that you will break
out the SMS capability? Is there another app with that capability? Or
is the only solution to stay on 2.6.0 and hope no vulnerabilities are
found?
All the best!
Sent using Hushmail
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:57 PM, "David Gessel" wrote:TL:DR?
Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS, could
you please give those of us who really do not want to go with you the
option of continuing to use (and not being automatically upgraded away
from) that feature in an abandonware version?
Jonas
2015-03-11 19:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi David, hi TS devs,
Post by David Gessel
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS,
could you please give those of us who really do not want to go with
you the option of continuing to use (and not being automatically
upgraded away from) that feature in an abandonware version?
thanks David for raising this issue again. I'm all with you that
dropping support for encrypted SMS is a bad decision. Several
discussions on this mailinglist and on github revealed that different
users from all around the world have the same point of view.


You explained the situation in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan),
others mentioned northern Africa, southern and central Europe. My
impression is that in many parts of the world mobile internet is not
reliable at all while a usable GSM connection is much more widespread.
This might be different in North and South America (both are mentioned
in the whispersystems blog post), but apparently at many places on the
world data connection is neither reliable nor cheap.

What saddens me, is that the TS developers don't participate in the
discussions at all. If I got it right, then the very purpose of this
public mailinglist is discussion about the future of TS. moxie and
mcginty outlined that several times on github when they asked people to
move discussions from there to the mailinglist. Moxie and McGinty, why
don't you take part in the discussions on the mailinglist? Instead, you
mention your decision on github from time to time and present it as
final with a blog post right now. Maybe you discussed the topic at your
winter break of code, but then nobody who wasn't there knows about that.
It would be awesome if you could make the decision-making process more
transparent.

If you intend to discuss game-changing decisions with the community,
then please take part in the discussions on this mailinglist.

Cheers,
jonas
Post by David Gessel
While it would certainly be nice if it were technically possible to fix iOS and detect deinstalls and otherwise streamline and simplify the use of encrypted SMS, it is my opinion that a genuinely useful and irreplaceable security tool is being lost in the quest for a flawless user experience and that is suboptimal.
It is certainly true that many secure applications have been hampered, perhaps even hobbled, in their adoption rates by excessively complex processes and features that only a true enthusiast could love, but when we give up an essential feature for a little convenience I think we are taking the mandate too far.
Here in Iraq (where I've been for the last 4 years), the data service is cut frequently leaving only voice and SMS. I had good success moving people to TS from whatsapp during those outages, and even convincing people who had both iOS and Android to favor their Android devices thanks to TS. It was a really lovely and seamless experience when secure communications persisted through network outages and moving from wifi to the crippled cellular network. No other application did this.
This change breaks an essential encrypted communication channel. SMS is the dominant, most reliable text coms method - and text is essential to those of us who are language challenged (not that cellular voice is secure).
Further, I read the dismissal of "expensive" data services on the blog and while I do not have statistical data to back up my argument either, my experience is that very few of my coworkers here can afford the $20/month pre-paid data service. Most have cell service and use data only on WiFi. TS used to allow seamless secure reach. Without encrypted SMS, that's no longer possible for the vast majority: in my team, about 1:10 of the smart phone users have data service and the group is fairly well paid by local standards. In my observations, people only use feature phones when their sub-standard smart phone breaks, dumped in this market because there are no warranties or returns, as they save up for another one.
And, speaking with a colleague who has spent the last 5 years in Afghanistan, the same is true there: key employees and westerners have post-paid data-inclusive plans, but the vast majority of employees and locals have pre-paid plans that include sufficient voice and SMS for their needs but can't afford data (which is usually 2x the cost of basic access). They have mostly moved from feature phones (which were overwhelmingly dominant when I was there) to smart phones, but use the "smart" features at the office where there is WiFi. (In Iraq, many of our employees pay for internet service at home, but the average citizen does not; in Afghanistan it seems even our main employees do not buy data service at home).
I think you're misinterpreting the data on uptake of overlay services. Tons of people here also use What'sApp and Vibr, but on wifi, not on cellular data plans and they still use voice and sms and I have not seen an unlimited data plan outside of the US. I will admit I've only had one South American SIM, so my data is incomplete, but in Brazil, Kenya, Italy, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the UAE, and Lebanon, where I have bought and used SIMs, every one comes with voice and SMS services and data services cost extra, 2-4x the cost of the SIM with basic provisioning in most markets.
If the mandate is to create a push services app that occupies a usage space between SMS (less iOS users) and data-only jabber/OTR services that is as easy to use as possible (and I'm not suggesting this is an invalid goal for some), I for one would very much appreciate breaking TextSecure away as a stand-alone app that functions just like the old textsecure did, or just leave the last encrypted SMS version available on the app store under a different name.
I suspect you'll find most users prefer encrypted SMS with some minor compatibility headaches but very reliable delivery to an application without the compatibility headaches that doesn't support secure coms over SMS.
Further, a mere one roundtrip's worth of "friction" always felt amazingly "right" to the users and actually lights up people's faces (because they see some positive indication that "encryption" was happening).
Detecting encrypted messages, or the lack thereof, doesn't seem like nearly as hard a problem as creating them in the first place.
State-run telcos (and, of course, all Telcos, state owned or not) are swimming in metadata from everyone who's carrying a phone. The only way to minimize that data is to use phones without a cellular radio at all (or one where the radio has been physically disabled). Further, push does not fix the metadata leaks and data-mode communications only start to fix the problems when their Tor-ified. In addressing that case, it seems like ChatSecure (or Xabber) is a better option than TextSecure. By supporting encrypted SMS, TextSecure had a clearly defined, unique use case.
I accept that it is hard to make and maintain secure SMS, but that's the sort of magic 31337 crypto experts pull off.
It is really annoying to have an app I don't want to update because it breaks the "update all" convenience and requires waiting around and doing them one at a time. I am sure it will be too tedious for the users I correspond with to freeze at 2.6, so the update that breaks encrypted SMS will be uninstall time, alas.
Boris Wagner
2015-03-11 23:08:03 UTC
Permalink
I know it's pointless fighting over personal preferences especially when
the decision was already made. But since there seem to be so many
opponents of recent decision against the SMS feature I would like to
state why from my perspective the decision was right.

As far as I can see TextSecure was never meant specifically for people
in Afghanistan as an instrument for opposition members in order to avoid
prosecution. Nor was it specifically meant for some travellers of
Iceland or other distant countries who do not want to wait for the next
free wifi hotspot to send their encrypted messages over.

The aim of TextSecure always was and is (at least that is what I
conclude from reading in the blog posts of Moxie Marlinspike,
whispersystems etc.) to provide secure means of communication to people
who have not the slightest idea of how encryption works. It is designed
for the people that today are deliberately using insecure tools like
WhatsApp etc., because they care about easy communication more than they
care about encryption. It is designed to demonstrate that privacy in
communication does not need to be complicated and does not require you
to show up on key-signing parties.

I'm very concerned about privacy in communication and admire the
developer's efforts to provide PFS via SMS from a technical point of
view. But still for me it's much more valuable that I now can embrace
all my friends using iOS. And also I wouldn't complain if TextSecure got
rid of these three inevitable UX issues with SMS transport Moxie
mentioned on this list, that I have run so (very, very) often into when
texting with my older relatives. There is only a slight chance that
anyone of them will ever understand even the difference between push and
sms transport let alone how to circumvent those issues.

From my personal perspective the developers of TextSecure have made the
right decision with focussing on a quick release of Signal 2.0. For
anyone who needs the encrypted SMS feature so urgently can, as Markus
Törnqvist proposed, can create a fork of TS. In this case the developers
of whispersystems still gave you a great ground to start on for free.
Post by Jonas
Hi David, hi TS devs,
Post by David Gessel
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS,
could you please give those of us who really do not want to go with
you the option of continuing to use (and not being automatically
upgraded away from) that feature in an abandonware version?
thanks David for raising this issue again. I'm all with you that
dropping support for encrypted SMS is a bad decision. Several
discussions on this mailinglist and on github revealed that different
users from all around the world have the same point of view.
You explained the situation in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan),
others mentioned northern Africa, southern and central Europe. My
impression is that in many parts of the world mobile internet is not
reliable at all while a usable GSM connection is much more widespread.
This might be different in North and South America (both are mentioned
in the whispersystems blog post), but apparently at many places on the
world data connection is neither reliable nor cheap.
What saddens me, is that the TS developers don't participate in the
discussions at all. If I got it right, then the very purpose of this
public mailinglist is discussion about the future of TS. moxie and
mcginty outlined that several times on github when they asked people to
move discussions from there to the mailinglist. Moxie and McGinty, why
don't you take part in the discussions on the mailinglist? Instead, you
mention your decision on github from time to time and present it as
final with a blog post right now. Maybe you discussed the topic at your
winter break of code, but then nobody who wasn't there knows about that.
It would be awesome if you could make the decision-making process more
transparent.
If you intend to discuss game-changing decisions with the community,
then please take part in the discussions on this mailinglist.
Sean Comeau
2015-03-12 01:22:16 UTC
Permalink
An SMS only fork is already available. Any help maintaining this would be appreciated.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text

________________________________________
From: whispersystems-***@lists.riseup.net [whispersystems-***@lists.riseup.net] on behalf of Boris Wagner [***@boriswagner.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:08 PM
To: ***@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [whispersystems] A brief suggestion about a future abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature

I know it's pointless fighting over personal preferences especially when
the decision was already made. But since there seem to be so many
opponents of recent decision against the SMS feature I would like to
state why from my perspective the decision was right.

As far as I can see TextSecure was never meant specifically for people
in Afghanistan as an instrument for opposition members in order to avoid
prosecution. Nor was it specifically meant for some travellers of
Iceland or other distant countries who do not want to wait for the next
free wifi hotspot to send their encrypted messages over.

The aim of TextSecure always was and is (at least that is what I
conclude from reading in the blog posts of Moxie Marlinspike,
whispersystems etc.) to provide secure means of communication to people
who have not the slightest idea of how encryption works. It is designed
for the people that today are deliberately using insecure tools like
WhatsApp etc., because they care about easy communication more than they
care about encryption. It is designed to demonstrate that privacy in
communication does not need to be complicated and does not require you
to show up on key-signing parties.

I'm very concerned about privacy in communication and admire the
developer's efforts to provide PFS via SMS from a technical point of
view. But still for me it's much more valuable that I now can embrace
all my friends using iOS. And also I wouldn't complain if TextSecure got
rid of these three inevitable UX issues with SMS transport Moxie
mentioned on this list, that I have run so (very, very) often into when
texting with my older relatives. There is only a slight chance that
anyone of them will ever understand even the difference between push and
sms transport let alone how to circumvent those issues.

From my personal perspective the developers of TextSecure have made the
right decision with focussing on a quick release of Signal 2.0. For
anyone who needs the encrypted SMS feature so urgently can, as Markus
Törnqvist proposed, can create a fork of TS. In this case the developers
of whispersystems still gave you a great ground to start on for free.
Post by Jonas
Hi David, hi TS devs,
Post by David Gessel
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted SMS,
could you please give those of us who really do not want to go with
you the option of continuing to use (and not being automatically
upgraded away from) that feature in an abandonware version?
thanks David for raising this issue again. I'm all with you that
dropping support for encrypted SMS is a bad decision. Several
discussions on this mailinglist and on github revealed that different
users from all around the world have the same point of view.
You explained the situation in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan),
others mentioned northern Africa, southern and central Europe. My
impression is that in many parts of the world mobile internet is not
reliable at all while a usable GSM connection is much more widespread.
This might be different in North and South America (both are mentioned
in the whispersystems blog post), but apparently at many places on the
world data connection is neither reliable nor cheap.
What saddens me, is that the TS developers don't participate in the
discussions at all. If I got it right, then the very purpose of this
public mailinglist is discussion about the future of TS. moxie and
mcginty outlined that several times on github when they asked people to
move discussions from there to the mailinglist. Moxie and McGinty, why
don't you take part in the discussions on the mailinglist? Instead, you
mention your decision on github from time to time and present it as
final with a blog post right now. Maybe you discussed the topic at your
winter break of code, but then nobody who wasn't there knows about that.
It would be awesome if you could make the decision-making process more
transparent.
If you intend to discuss game-changing decisions with the community,
then please take part in the discussions on this mailinglist.
David Gessel
2015-03-12 11:24:30 UTC
Permalink
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [whispersystems] A brief suggestion about a future abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature
From: Sean Comeau <***@ftlnetworks.ca>
To: Boris Wagner <***@boriswagner.net>, ***@lists.riseup.net <***@lists.riseup.net>
Date: Thu Mar 12 2015 04:22:16 GMT+0300 (Arabic Standard Time)
Post by Sean Comeau
An SMS only fork is already available. Any help maintaining this would be appreciated.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Thanks Sean! I'm installing now and I'll start moving my contacts over and I'll help as I can. It is a bit of a pain to make the migration (talk about UI issues - I have language issues on top of trying to explain challenging technical concepts), but if this fork is committed to SMS transport, it is the way to go for those of us in data challenged environments.

Do you have a separate mailing list? It is clear there's a strong user community that needs SMS transport and will help to ensure it continues. It is absolutely thanks to the excellent work Whisper Systems has done that we have this option and it is very much appreciated.

A quick note about use cases in places like Afghanistan and Iraq: it isn't anti-government action at all, but rather hostile environments where there are, actually, people around whose mission is to cause you harm. A common use of SMS is arranging meetings and physical intersections. While the phone itself leaks position information in real time and position history can often be used to predict future locations, it is far more straightforward to plan a mission around an explicit statement of future intent and location--whether that mission is to meet for coffee or to send an SVEST to meet people meeting for coffee.

While it is absolutely valid to use cryptography to improve personal privacy for a variety of non-life-threatening reasons, whether personal, professional, or ideological; there are use cases with higher stakes and programs like Securecom and TextSecure are very important tools in those situations. The open source cryptographic community has generally been concerned with and considerate of these sorts of uses, even if they are edge cases by user population. I personally think that has real significance and am grateful to the community for their excellent work. It saves lives.

Securecom FTW - the essential "initiate secure connection" option is back! YAY!

It is a bit of a hassle to run both TextSecure and SecureCom and may not be possible until TextSecure really divests itself of SMS connectivity. One would think that registering SecureCOM as the SMS handler for both incoming and outgoing and disabling SMS/MMS in/out handling on TextSecure would allow peaceful coexistence, but it doesn't.

TextSecure still grabs the key exchange messages on one side or another, and it isn't entirely clear why it does sometimes and not others. Even deregistering from the push server doesn't help. Unencrypted SMS messages go where expected given the options settings - just key exchange messages get snarfed up by TextSecure breaking the key exchange with Securecom. Even force stopping TextSecure doesn't help, it just wakes on incoming, even with mobile data/wifi turned off. It seems like slightly unfair behavior.

Fortunately, uninstalling textsecure completely on all devices allows securecom to handle SMS key exchange reliably. Presumably, if you have data services working anyway, a Jabber client that supports OTR, like ChatSecure, will handle secure communications and avoid all the push-server weirdness.
Jonas
2015-03-12 17:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
I know it's pointless fighting over personal preferences especially
when the decision was already made. But since there seem to be so
many opponents of recent decision against the SMS feature I would
like to state why from my perspective the decision was right.
Thanks Boris for raising your voice. It's good to read from someone
who is in favour of the decision to abandon the encrypted sms feature.
Post by Boris Wagner
As far as I can see TextSecure was never meant specifically for
people in Afghanistan as an instrument for opposition members in
order to avoid prosecution. Nor was it specifically meant for some
travellers of Iceland or other distant countries who do not want to
wait for the next free wifi hotspot to send their encrypted
messages over.
The aim of TextSecure always was and is (at least that is what I
conclude from reading in the blog posts of Moxie Marlinspike,
whispersystems etc.) to provide secure means of communication to
people who have not the slightest idea of how encryption works. It
is designed for the people that today are deliberately using
insecure tools like WhatsApp etc., because they care about easy
communication more than they care about encryption. It is designed
to demonstrate that privacy in communication does not need to be
complicated and does not require you to show up on key-signing
parties.
Valid point taken. Even though I'm pretty certain that a good
compromise between 'easy privacy app for the masses' and 'secure
communication for those affected by repression' is possible. Even
more, I think that a compromise between those two is the best option.
First, the more common and widespread secure and encrypted
communication is, the less suspicious is it. Second, people who need
cryptography for reasons of oppression+repression need to communicate
with people less concerned in most cases. And it's simply awesome to
have tools like the OpenWhispersystems software at hand in those
cases, that is meant to be easy to use, trustworthy and reliable.
Post by Boris Wagner
I'm very concerned about privacy in communication and admire the
developer's efforts to provide PFS via SMS from a technical point
of view. But still for me it's much more valuable that I now can
embrace all my friends using iOS. And also I wouldn't complain if
TextSecure got rid of these three inevitable UX issues with SMS
transport Moxie mentioned on this list, that I have run so (very,
very) often into when texting with my older relatives. There is
only a slight chance that anyone of them will ever understand even
the difference between push and sms transport let alone how to
circumvent those issues.
Probably you (and moxie) are right, and the need to distinguish
between two transport protocols is to confusing for most
non-technophiles. But it has been proposed several times to make the
encrypted sms feature optional. One would need to explicitely enable
it in the app options. That way the feature would remain for those who
utterly need it, but would not confuse the masses of uninformed users
who don't care about transport protocols, key exchanges and so on.
Post by Boris Wagner
From my personal perspective the developers of TextSecure have made
the right decision with focussing on a quick release of Signal 2.0.
For anyone who needs the encrypted SMS feature so urgently can, as
Markus Törnqvist proposed, can create a fork of TS. In this case
the developers of whispersystems still gave you a great ground to
start on for free.
Forking the encrypted sms feature into a new app indeed would be an
option. Apparently some people already tried to go that road. But
obviously there're not that much people who are as talented and
competent as the OpenWhispersystems developers to develop privacy-
critical software in a way that it is both easy and secure to use. In
fact no forks of TS that I've seen so far have made any noteable
progress. That might change now (I hope so), but it's not an easy task
to develop (and maintain!) sensitive software like TextSecure. E.g. I
honestly don't feel like being able to do that at all.

But to be honest, that's the main reason why I try to argue in favour
of keeping the encrypted sms feature in TextSecure: I believe that
moxie, mcginty and the other devs do a very good job at developing
secure software with a great UX. My hope is that the people who are in
urgent need for good privacy-enabling software - and are tied to gsm
network protocols for communication - could continue to use and
benefit from their software :)

Cheers,
jonas
Post by Boris Wagner
Post by Jonas
Hi David, hi TS devs,
Post by David Gessel
TL:DR? Dear Whisper Systems, if you're moving on from encrypted
SMS, could you please give those of us who really do not want
to go with you the option of continuing to use (and not being
automatically upgraded away from) that feature in an
abandonware version?
thanks David for raising this issue again. I'm all with you that
dropping support for encrypted SMS is a bad decision. Several
discussions on this mailinglist and on github revealed that
different users from all around the world have the same point of
view.
You explained the situation in the Middle East (Iraq and
Afghanistan), others mentioned northern Africa, southern and
central Europe. My impression is that in many parts of the world
mobile internet is not reliable at all while a usable GSM
connection is much more widespread. This might be different in
North and South America (both are mentioned in the whispersystems
blog post), but apparently at many places on the world data
connection is neither reliable nor cheap.
What saddens me, is that the TS developers don't participate in
the discussions at all. If I got it right, then the very purpose
of this public mailinglist is discussion about the future of TS.
moxie and mcginty outlined that several times on github when they
asked people to move discussions from there to the mailinglist.
Moxie and McGinty, why don't you take part in the discussions on
the mailinglist? Instead, you mention your decision on github
from time to time and present it as final with a blog post right
now. Maybe you discussed the topic at your winter break of code,
but then nobody who wasn't there knows about that. It would be
awesome if you could make the decision-making process more
transparent.
If you intend to discuss game-changing decisions with the
community, then please take part in the discussions on this
mailinglist.
Tim Harman
2015-03-13 01:36:44 UTC
Permalink
For what it's worth - I also agree with the decision.

The arguments against seem to break down into the following two:

1) Not everyone has access to data.

But as the blog post states, those places often don't have good access to
smartphones either. I've no doubt there's places where that's not true,
but why focus/cater for such a small segment?

How are they downloading the app anyway if they've no data? ;)


2) It'll just be another WhatsApp.

Well yes, TextSecure is just "another" messenger. But it's a messenger
you can TRUST. If trust and real security isn't important to you, then
yes, it IS just another messenger.


Personally, I can understand the first argument. I believe the second to
be laughable.

Dropping the SMS baggage allows the iOS and the Browser support
(https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser/) to flourish. And
hopefully in the future, more platforms. That can only be a good in IMHO,
at the expensive of sadly letting down a minor (but vocal, I'll give them
that!) number of users.

Data is only going to become more ubiquitous in the future. And I believe
you should plan for the future, not keep catering to the past.

Tim
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-13 02:52:39 UTC
Permalink
"2) It'll just be another WhatsApp.

Well yes, TextSecure is just "another" messenger. But it's a messenger
you can TRUST. If trust and real security isn't important to you, then
yes, it IS just another messenger."

Sorry, but the data channel used by TextSecure (Google Cloud Message) isn't
trustable. There are delays, some messages aren't delivered, and TextSecure
doesn't have that two checks WhatsApp has: one telling the message was sent
and the other confirming the message was received. I made dozens of tests,
would love TextSecure would be reliable, but it isn't.

SMS yet is the most trustable channel. If you need your message be
delivered, SMS is the better channel yet in lots of different use cases.

But, the decision making process of TextSecure is vertical... sad.

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
I gotta say well stated. I understand where you're coming from and you
make very good points. I do have to say from my time with an ipod touch (no
data) it is not difficult to download an app without data (via wifi) but an
app that required Internet connectivity to function was of limited use as I
could only use it when connected to wifi (usually an unsecured public
connection).
As far as the second point you made about the people stating it's just
another whatsapp... You have to take the point of view of a non-power user.
I can promise you that whatsapp will tell them it's secure just as much as
textsecure devs will say textsecure is secure. They don't know better one
way or the other, both companies say their secure (maybe even state their
more secure than the other). They don't have the ability to verify
themselves or wouldn't know how. Which is the audience textsecure is
targeting with this decision. The users who don't know ore care about keys
and the requirements for encryption. Sadly though from their point of view
it comes down to a decision on features (if they do some research) or what
app their friends already use.
Like I said though, you make very good points. I agree that an open
source, verifiable app is more valuable than other closed source apps
claiming the same. I agree with you for the most part. I don't think the
sms channel should be turned off at this point, but once the data channel
is reliable and tested more.
If I'm correct, either I read it on the blog or on here that their plan is
to use their own service to deliver messages (for better reliability)
instead of relying on Google cloud at the same time as turning of sms
support. I'm worried that doing so may lead to a newer, not tested enough
solution to the data channel while disabling the option to fall back on sms
if it too turns out to be unreliable. Leaving users to resort to a whole
different app as a fallback and possibly for good. I think the risk of
doing both at once to too great of a risk for poor ux, but then again I am
totally unaware of how much testing has gone into the new data channel
method.
Post by Tim Harman
For what it's worth - I also agree with the decision.
1) Not everyone has access to data.
But as the blog post states, those places often don't have good access to
smartphones either. I've no doubt there's places where that's not true,
but why focus/cater for such a small segment?
How are they downloading the app anyway if they've no data? ;)
2) It'll just be another WhatsApp.
Well yes, TextSecure is just "another" messenger. But it's a messenger
you can TRUST. If trust and real security isn't important to you, then
yes, it IS just another messenger.
Personally, I can understand the first argument. I believe the second to
be laughable.
Dropping the SMS baggage allows the iOS and the Browser support
(https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser/) to flourish. And
hopefully in the future, more platforms. That can only be a good in IMHO,
at the expensive of sadly letting down a minor (but vocal, I'll give them
that!) number of users.
Data is only going to become more ubiquitous in the future. And I believe
you should plan for the future, not keep catering to the past.
Tim
--Bryan
Tim Harman
2015-03-13 03:03:51 UTC
Permalink
You mis-understand what I meant by trust. My trust isn't reliability.

Trust as in "Be safe in the knowledge that only you and your intended
recipient will be able to read the message"

I use TextSecure 20-30 times a day. I've yet to have an issue with it.

That said, I've read the threads about the issues with GCM. But if you
read the blog post, they explicitly acknowledge it's a problem they're
aware of and working to fix.

Tim
Post by Leandro Salvador
"2) It'll just be another WhatsApp.
Well yes, TextSecure is just "another" messenger. But it's a messenger
you can TRUST. If trust and real security isn't important to you, then
yes, it IS just another messenger."
Sorry, but the data channel used by TextSecure (Google Cloud Message) isn't
trustable. There are delays, some messages aren't delivered, and TextSecure
doesn't have that two checks WhatsApp has: one telling the message was sent
and the other confirming the message was received. I made dozens of tests,
would love TextSecure would be reliable, but it isn't.
SMS yet is the most trustable channel. If you need your message be
delivered, SMS is the better channel yet in lots of different use cases.
But, the decision making process of TextSecure is vertical... sad.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Jonas
2015-03-13 11:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
This means if it's not reliable, then you can't fall back on sms because
it's no longer there. I just hope the devs reconsider waiting to drop
sms until their own method has been tested "in the wild" so to speak.
Too late, moxie applied the patch to master branch with commit a4e18c5 a
few hours ago:

https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/commit/a4e18c515c61674dbe04f93fecce2b71c91f840b

Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore. Encrypted SMS will
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the automatic
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate to the most TS
users within a few days.

Cheers,
jonas
Drake Wilson
2015-03-13 11:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonas
Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore. Encrypted SMS will
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the automatic
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate to the most TS
users within a few days.
Congratulations, you're a proprietary messaging platform.

Goodbye.

---> Drake Wilson
Per Guth
2015-03-13 11:23:45 UTC
Permalink
<3 Open Whisper Systems! Just to add another voice of support.

All the best,
Per
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-13 12:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Congratulations again, TextSecure is a proprietary messaging platform.

Goodbye. =(

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Drake Wilson
Post by Jonas
Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore. Encrypted SMS will
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the automatic
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate to the most TS
users within a few days.
Congratulations, you're a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye.
---> Drake Wilson
Buck Doyle
2015-03-13 12:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Wow, so much ragequitting!

How is it proprietary if it’s open source?
Post by Leandro Salvador
Congratulations again, TextSecure is a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye. =(
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Jonas
Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore. Encrypted SMS will
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the automatic
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate to the most TS
users within a few days.
Congratulations, you're a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye.
---> Drake Wilson
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-13 12:29:50 UTC
Permalink
The source code is free, but the decision making process is not horizontal
neither collective, exactly as in proprietary software enterprises and
products. "Create a brunch!", some will say... confirming the argument that
the source code is free, but the TextSecure "container" (decisions,
strategy, future, data channel choiced, SMS or not, etc.), is exactly like
any proprietary software. To whom for who it doesn't matter, is
comprehensible to see this vision as "so much ragequitting".

Best regards!

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Buck Doyle
Wow, so much ragequitting!
How is it proprietary if it’s open source?
Post by Leandro Salvador
Congratulations again, TextSecure is a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye. =(
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Jonas
Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore. Encrypted SMS will
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the automatic
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate to the most TS
users within a few days.
Congratulations, you're a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye.
---> Drake Wilson
Boris Wagner
2015-03-13 13:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Does the term free open source software imply that decisions have to be
made collectively? That it is mandatory hold a referendum on every major
decision you make in your software design? I have a different concept of
FOSS.

And even if so in theory: In practise decisions are made by those who do
the work and not those who complain. Free only means that you are free
to change the source code to your likings. This applies the core
developers of TextSecure as well.

I agree with many points made here, that encrypted SMS is an important
feature that some people depend on. And I did not mean any disregard by
calling the decision for or against SMS transport personal in an earlier
post. There are valid points for keeping the SMS feature, some of them I
totally agree on. But at the point where you have to decide where your
limited ressources in time/manpower are spent on and in the end you
can't tell by absolute numbers which is the better way, there the
decision on both sides might get influenced by personal opinion,
beliefs, likes, preferences etc.

As far as I can judge the developers have put much thought into this
decision and did not dismiss this feature lightheartedly. You won't
convince anyone by saying this hurts my personal understanding of
principle xyz (FOSS for instance). Because on the other hand there are
all the other personal understandings of Usability, UX, privacy,
security.

So whether the criticism is legitimate or not at least it should show
respect for the fact that there are different opinions out there.
Anything else only discourages developers spending their free time on
the project.

And speaking on different perspectives: As I see it the goal to provide
users with a way to chat securely via SMS was met and given to the
public. It's only that its implementation was discontinued.
Post by Leandro Salvador
The source code is free, but the decision making process is not
horizontal neither collective, exactly as in proprietary software
enterprises and products. "Create a brunch!", some will say...
confirming the argument that the source code is free, but the
TextSecure "container" (decisions, strategy, future, data channel
choiced, SMS or not, etc.), is exactly like any proprietary software.
To whom for who it doesn't matter, is comprehensible to see this
vision as "so much ragequitting".
Best regards!
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Wow, so much ragequitting!
How is it proprietary if it’s open source?
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Leandro Salvador
Congratulations again, TextSecure is a proprietary messaging
platform.
Goodbye. =(
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Jonas
Seems like there's no room for discussion anymore.
Encrypted SMS will
Post by Jonas
cease to exist with the next TS release. And thanks to the
automatic
Post by Jonas
upgrade channel through Google Play, this will propagate
to the most TS
Post by Jonas
users within a few days.
Congratulations, you're a proprietary messaging platform.
Goodbye.
---> Drake Wilson
Jonas
2015-03-13 20:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
I agree with many points made here, that encrypted SMS is an important
feature that some people depend on. And I did not mean any disregard by
calling the decision for or against SMS transport personal in an earlier
post. There are valid points for keeping the SMS feature, some of them I
totally agree on. But at the point where you have to decide where your
limited ressources in time/manpower are spent on and in the end you
can't tell by absolute numbers which is the better way, there the
decision on both sides might get influenced by personal opinion,
beliefs, likes, preferences etc.
Honestly, I agree with you on that point. I'm very thankful to
OpenWhispersystems for developing valuable software like TextSecure. As
the thread starts to turn into a flamewar, lets try to emphasize this
again: thanks to moxie, mcginty and all the others for your work. I have
biggest respect for your achievement.
Post by Boris Wagner
As far as I can judge the developers have put much thought into this
decision and did not dismiss this feature lightheartedly. You won't
convince anyone by saying this hurts my personal understanding of
principle xyz (FOSS for instance). Because on the other hand there are
all the other personal understandings of Usability, UX, privacy,
security.
Here I disagree: To my knowledge there was no a public discussion
between core developers and the community regarding the decision to
abandon the encrypted SMS feature. My impression is, that this decision
was taken behind closed doors and without asking for opinions from a
broader community. While it is perfectly valid to take decisions that
way, I beg to differ and criticize this decision-making process.
Post by Boris Wagner
So whether the criticism is legitimate or not at least it should show
respect for the fact that there are different opinions out there.
Anything else only discourages developers spending their free time on
the project.
Full ACK here.

Cheers,
jonas
Drake Wilson
2015-03-13 08:19:06 UTC
Permalink
[This message has several BCC recipients.]
Post by Tim Harman
2) It'll just be another WhatsApp.
Well yes, TextSecure is just "another" messenger. But it's a messenger
you can TRUST. If trust and real security isn't important to you, then
yes, it IS just another messenger.
Personally, I can understand the first argument. I believe the second to
be laughable.
My qualms about dropping secure SMS support are that "just another messenger"
doesn't theoretically have to be as centralized. I know the most common user
models for messaging tend to treat the backend as not their problem and lump
everything within a "service" together, but.

Suddenly, we move from a situation in which if Google or OWS decides to shut
down the data channel, everyone gets temporarily confused but can keep their
contact lists alive and their secure sessions alive and start arranging to
transition to a different service if needed, to a situation in which if either
decides to shut down the data channel... your secure session is _gone_.
What are you going to do? Negotiate with your contacts about where to talk
to each other next in the clear? Did you have a _second_ secure channel?
Maybe you should have anyway, but...

There's some counterarguments here along the lines of "Google could do other
nasty things like push a malicious OS update" but I'm not buying those,
because how quickly and how brutally a maneuver of power can _propagate_,
how much collateral damage it might do, and how difficult it would be to
justify in other contexts are quite important in a social sense. We're
probably not NSA-proof either, and yet e2e crypto (even TOFU) is
considered much better here than s2c. In the absence of a way for users
to be /de facto/ on federated transport rather than on centralized
transport (regardless of whether there's theoretical backend federation
which no group will actually be able to make use of)...

http://xkcd.com/743/

If you (the TextSecure decision-makers) do this, as far as I currently
know, I'm going to be stuck using your (singular, from an authority
perspective) backend with no "smooth" out. And I'm going to be stuck
continuing to use it because that's what my contacts now use, and you'll
have committed an embrace-extinguish cycle, using the power of required
updates plus network effects to make sure none of us can get away without
convincing everyone else, and without the devolution of power that even
cellular networks themselves still have to some extent. I allowed you
to take responsibility for announcing me by my telephone number and
trusted you not to lock me in. Are you going to do it anyway by having
my keys vanish as soon as I leave the area you control?

(A fork doesn't help. You _still_ have to convince everyone to use
it, first of all, and then the UI/backend harmony situation and the
code trust situation would both disintegrate. Unification is an inherent
part of the value.)

If there's another factor here that means the situation _won't_ be "just
another (centralized, single-authority) messenger" at the transport level,
then I haven't been able to readily discover it from the OWS website or
from the GitHub repo. Enlighten me, please!

---> Drake Wilson
Matej Kovacic
2015-03-13 09:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Tim Harman
How are they downloading the app anyway if they've no data? ;)
They use wi-fi, but have no mobile data plan.
Post by Tim Harman
Data is only going to become more ubiquitous in the future. And I
believe you should plan for the future, not keep catering to the past.
Yes, but they are abandoning something which is already working.

I am not saying there should be put more effort into the development of
something on top of the SMS transport. Why just abandon something which
is already working?

Yes, simplicity. But there are cost for that.


Regards,

M.
Angel Stoleski
2015-03-13 09:55:57 UTC
Permalink
I just saw that the update of textsecure removed encrypted sms, my question
is if you have older textsecure will the sms be still encrypted? and do you
guys trust securecom text?
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Tim Harman
How are they downloading the app anyway if they've no data? ;)
They use wi-fi, but have no mobile data plan.
Post by Tim Harman
Data is only going to become more ubiquitous in the future. And I
believe you should plan for the future, not keep catering to the past.
Yes, but they are abandoning something which is already working.
I am not saying there should be put more effort into the development of
something on top of the SMS transport. Why just abandon something which
is already working?
Yes, simplicity. But there are cost for that.
Regards,
M.
Stefan Sayer
2015-03-13 12:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonas
utterly need it, but would not confuse the masses of uninformed users
who don't care about transport protocols, key exchanges and so on.
I think there's a misconception here about the use of OTT text versus
SMS, which is also apparent in the blog post [0]. People *do* care
about the transport, specifically because always-on mobile data is
usually not a given for both communication partners (for several
reasons: flatrate data plans, battery consumption, coverage, roaming)
and thus OTT text is used *for different situations/communication
patterns* than SMS.

My observations in Germany but also in India, Nepal, Indonesia,
Malaysia and some more countries have been that OTT texting is wildly
popular, but for longer chat conversations and group chats, while SMS
is still the method used if reliability or a prompt response is
wanted, also between smartphone users.

In WhatsApp, this is somewhoat countered by presence ('last seen') and
the delivery / seen report, which both have their own privacy
implications.

That SMS is not going away quickly is also reflected in the view of
analysts (e.g. [1], [2]) even if there is obviously more being written
about a quickly growing technology than the incumbent tech, even if
it's still huge, usage and revenue-wise.

In my opinion, only the reason #4 ("It’s holding us back.") is the
really valid and strong one; it's a strategic decision, and while I
wouldn't agree with it I find it understandable that this also
excludes keeping SMS as transport as an option.

Stefan

[0]

https://whispersystems.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/

"You monsters, what about the people who can’t afford data?

It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places. Just look at
the places where market penetration of overlay services like Viber,
Line, and WhatsApp have been the highest. The phrase “WhatsApp number”
has even replaced the phrase “phone number” in many parts of south
america."

[1]
http://www.portioresearch.com/en/blog/2013/ott-messaging-apps-and-social-networks.aspx

[2]
http://www.netsize.com/sms-alive-and-kicking-and-a-poll-on-ott-versus-sms/
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-13 12:58:38 UTC
Permalink
"It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places."

Stefan, sorry man, but it is the opposite of what you said. The SMS plans
are cheaper, it when they are not absolutely free. Data plans in countries
as Brazil are expensive and limited to things as 200MB per month in pre
paid plans, 500MB in pos paid, with connections in Edge (2,5G) in most
cities, HSDPA (3G in great cities, and 4G in Sao Paulo and Rio, for
example. People here uses WhatsApp, but it is normally offline in transit
and online when with Wi-Fi available. Everybody sends a SMS when the
message has to be delivered immediately. Now, with the top down decision
taken by the TextSecure donors, only unencrypted SMS. For whose SMS is not
useful in its concrete reality, is comprehensible to defend the end of SMS
channel. A little solidarity with reality that are not ours is a good
principle to be taken, anyway, I guess.

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Stefan Sayer
Post by Jonas
utterly need it, but would not confuse the masses of uninformed users
who don't care about transport protocols, key exchanges and so on.
I think there's a misconception here about the use of OTT text versus
SMS, which is also apparent in the blog post [0]. People *do* care
about the transport, specifically because always-on mobile data is
usually not a given for both communication partners (for several
reasons: flatrate data plans, battery consumption, coverage, roaming)
and thus OTT text is used *for different situations/communication
patterns* than SMS.
My observations in Germany but also in India, Nepal, Indonesia,
Malaysia and some more countries have been that OTT texting is wildly
popular, but for longer chat conversations and group chats, while SMS
is still the method used if reliability or a prompt response is
wanted, also between smartphone users.
In WhatsApp, this is somewhoat countered by presence ('last seen') and
the delivery / seen report, which both have their own privacy
implications.
That SMS is not going away quickly is also reflected in the view of
analysts (e.g. [1], [2]) even if there is obviously more being written
about a quickly growing technology than the incumbent tech, even if
it's still huge, usage and revenue-wise.
In my opinion, only the reason #4 ("It’s holding us back.") is the
really valid and strong one; it's a strategic decision, and while I
wouldn't agree with it I find it understandable that this also
excludes keeping SMS as transport as an option.
Stefan
[0]
https://whispersystems.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/
"You monsters, what about the people who can’t afford data?
It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places. Just look at
the places where market penetration of overlay services like Viber,
Line, and WhatsApp have been the highest. The phrase “WhatsApp number”
has even replaced the phrase “phone number” in many parts of south
america."
[1]
http://www.portioresearch.com/en/blog/2013/ott-messaging-apps-and-social-networks.aspx
[2]
http://www.netsize.com/sms-alive-and-kicking-and-a-poll-on-ott-versus-sms/
Stefan Sayer
2015-03-13 13:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Leandro,
"It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places."
note that I quoted this paragraph from the whispersystems blog, as I
was refering to that point.
Stefan, sorry man, but it is the opposite of what you said. The SMS
plans are cheaper, it when they are not absolutely free. Data plans in
countries as Brazil are expensive and limited to things as 200MB per
month in pre paid plans, 500MB in pos paid, with connections in Edge
(2,5G) in most cities, HSDPA (3G in great cities, and 4G in Sao Paulo
and Rio, for example. People here uses WhatsApp, but it is normally
offline in transit and online when with Wi-Fi available. Everybody
sends a SMS when the message has to be delivered immediately. Now,
exactly the point I was trying to make - that SMS and OTT IM
(WhatsApp, TextSecure over data/push, ...) are used for different
purposes.

With Best Regards
Stefan
with the top down decision taken by the TextSecure donors, only
unencrypted SMS. For whose SMS is not useful in its concrete reality,
is comprehensible to defend the end of SMS channel. A little
solidarity with reality that are not ours is a good principle to be
taken, anyway, I guess.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Tristan
2015-03-13 13:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Stefan is quoting from Moxie's blog. But, frankly, it seriously worries me
that the person driving this project seems to be so out of touch with the
global situation. And abandoning features important to people who seriously
need them, like the very real and very serious situation of those living in
war zones, makes me wonder what the actual driving forces for this project
are.

Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you re-spawn
when you die, in the other you don't.
Post by Leandro Salvador
"It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places."
Stefan, sorry man, but it is the opposite of what you said. The SMS plans
are cheaper, it when they are not absolutely free. Data plans in countries
as Brazil are expensive and limited to things as 200MB per month in pre
paid plans, 500MB in pos paid, with connections in Edge (2,5G) in most
cities, HSDPA (3G in great cities, and 4G in Sao Paulo and Rio, for
example. People here uses WhatsApp, but it is normally offline in transit
and online when with Wi-Fi available. Everybody sends a SMS when the
message has to be delivered immediately. Now, with the top down decision
taken by the TextSecure donors, only unencrypted SMS. For whose SMS is not
useful in its concrete reality, is comprehensible to defend the end of SMS
channel. A little solidarity with reality that are not ours is a good
principle to be taken, anyway, I guess.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Stefan Sayer
Post by Jonas
utterly need it, but would not confuse the masses of uninformed users
who don't care about transport protocols, key exchanges and so on.
I think there's a misconception here about the use of OTT text versus
SMS, which is also apparent in the blog post [0]. People *do* care
about the transport, specifically because always-on mobile data is
usually not a given for both communication partners (for several
reasons: flatrate data plans, battery consumption, coverage, roaming)
and thus OTT text is used *for different situations/communication
patterns* than SMS.
My observations in Germany but also in India, Nepal, Indonesia,
Malaysia and some more countries have been that OTT texting is wildly
popular, but for longer chat conversations and group chats, while SMS
is still the method used if reliability or a prompt response is
wanted, also between smartphone users.
In WhatsApp, this is somewhoat countered by presence ('last seen') and
the delivery / seen report, which both have their own privacy
implications.
That SMS is not going away quickly is also reflected in the view of
analysts (e.g. [1], [2]) even if there is obviously more being written
about a quickly growing technology than the incumbent tech, even if
it's still huge, usage and revenue-wise.
In my opinion, only the reason #4 ("It’s holding us back.") is the
really valid and strong one; it's a strategic decision, and while I
wouldn't agree with it I find it understandable that this also
excludes keeping SMS as transport as an option.
Stefan
[0]
https://whispersystems.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/
"You monsters, what about the people who can’t afford data?
It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places. Just look at
the places where market penetration of overlay services like Viber,
Line, and WhatsApp have been the highest. The phrase “WhatsApp number”
has even replaced the phrase “phone number” in many parts of south
america."
[1]
http://www.portioresearch.com/en/blog/2013/ott-messaging-apps-and-social-networks.aspx
[2]
http://www.netsize.com/sms-alive-and-kicking-and-a-poll-on-ott-versus-sms/
Boris Wagner
2015-03-13 13:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
Matej Kovacic
2015-03-13 13:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
I do not agree. In some countries talking about "wrong" things can ruin
your life.


Regards,

M.
Corvin Russell
2015-03-13 15:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Just want to thank the TextSecure team for all the volunteer or underpaid
work put into this utility. If anyone feels they can manage all the
tradeoffs better and produce a more compelling app and service they are
certainly welcome to try.

We heard evidence that maintaining support for the SMS channel was not at
all trivial and further, empirical evidence was quoted that people in
developing countries are less likely to use SMS than data - it is rather
markets like the US and Europe where SMS is more heavily used. SMS also has
the serious downside of unmitigated legibility of metadata.

If the data channel can be made to work reliably (it has improved) that is
the best solution as far as I am concerned.
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
I do not agree. In some countries talking about "wrong" things can ruin
your life.
Regards,
M.
Tim Harman
2015-03-13 23:30:17 UTC
Permalink
And your life is more at risk because you can't send an encrypted SMS?
Just a fully encrypted data message?

When you send an SMS, a Telco can easily see:

a) That you're sending something encrypted (Now you're a person of
interest, maybe?)
b) The number you're sending it from
c) the number you're sending it to

The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.

If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.

Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this either
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
I do not agree. In some countries talking about "wrong" things can ruin
your life.
Regards,
M.
--
Tristan
2015-03-14 19:43:56 UTC
Permalink
"The telco can't see any of that via the data channel."

Except, they can. Assuming you are using your telco's data connection, that
information needs to be available otherwise it would be impossible to
handle the data traffic. Your ISP knows that a message is from you by
virtue of you sending it to them. They know it's encrypted because, it's
encrypted.

If you bounce the message off a TextSecure server then you can hide the
destination from your telco, but that just means the TextSecure server
knows that information instead (in addition to having provided the first
too bits of information to another person). There are advantages to using a
data connection sure, but it's no silver bullet.
Post by Tim Harman
And your life is more at risk because you can't send an encrypted SMS?
Just a fully encrypted data message?
a) That you're sending something encrypted (Now you're a person of
interest, maybe?)
b) The number you're sending it from
c) the number you're sending it to
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.
Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this either
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
I do not agree. In some countries talking about "wrong" things can ruin
your life.
Regards,
M.
--
Angel Stoleski
2015-03-14 20:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Exactly, besides TextSecure failed big time with this. It put american
stupidity before real life needs and use of encryption.
Post by Tristan
"The telco can't see any of that via the data channel."
Except, they can. Assuming you are using your telco's data connection,
that information needs to be available otherwise it would be impossible to
handle the data traffic. Your ISP knows that a message is from you by
virtue of you sending it to them. They know it's encrypted because, it's
encrypted.
If you bounce the message off a TextSecure server then you can hide the
destination from your telco, but that just means the TextSecure server
knows that information instead (in addition to having provided the first
too bits of information to another person). There are advantages to using a
data connection sure, but it's no silver bullet.
Post by Tim Harman
And your life is more at risk because you can't send an encrypted SMS?
Just a fully encrypted data message?
a) That you're sending something encrypted (Now you're a person of
interest, maybe?)
b) The number you're sending it from
c) the number you're sending it to
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.
Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this either
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Boris Wagner
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's
people
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Boris Wagner
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
I do not agree. In some countries talking about "wrong" things can ruin
your life.
Regards,
M.
--
Sam Lanning
2015-03-14 20:47:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry Angel...
Post by Angel Stoleski
Exactly, besides TextSecure failed big time with this. It put american
stupidity before real life needs and use of encryption.
None of this has anything to do with "american stupidity", and that term
is going to be deeply offensive to many people on this mailing list (I
am writing this as a non-american).

Firstly, it's not stupidity at all, the vast majority of people (in ALL
nations), are not going to be crypto experts, and for those people, the
UI/UX you had with having to deal with both SMS and data (some encrypted
some not) in the same app is confusing. It is not clear at all what is
going on to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of crypto,
which are most people.

Regards,
Sam.
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-14 21:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sam!

"Firstly, it's not stupidity at all, the vast majority of people (in ALL
nations), are not going to be crypto experts, and for those people, the
UI/UX you had with having to deal with both SMS and data (some encrypted
some not) in the same app is confusing. It is not clear at all what is
going on to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of crypto,
which are most people."

Buddy, I didn't get your point. What is the correlation between the "basic
understanding of crypto", and the understanding of that the user has (had!)
the possibility of send over two channels?

The old TextSecure offered the possibility to SMS messages exclusively over
data, exclusively over SMS, or both. None connection with the crypto magic
and ir complexity, don't you agree?

If the motivation of Moxie and McGinty was some difficulties impossible to
fix, is comprehensible, even this difficulties being a mystery to me yet.
But the UI/UX already was fine and, in a limit, any regular user could
choose to send only over data.

By the way, considering that the crypto SMS machinery already was developed
and worked, why they deleted the feature instead of change the default
configurations and offer the crypto SMS to whose needs and uses (used!) it?

The developers don't have to give any satisfactions of their motivations,
but they gave in that blog post, nice. Anyway, in my perception, there are
a bit of mystery on that argument that it's expensive/hard to maintain the
crypto SMS. I don't understand it in a developer to developer
basis/argument, do you? If yes, please, share with us. I'm a Java
developer, you can use a language for another developer, please.

By the way, all my consideration to the gorgeous work made by all the
TextSecure developers until now. I hope any critics be received as a normal
thing in a community, what doesn't mean the criticise don't recognize the
efforts and the value of the people. If just eulogy is accepted and don't
agree or make respectful critics aren't, it wouldn't be a community. This
topic, by the way, treats exactly about "a brief suggestion about a future
abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature". The feature was abandoned
ignoring any suggestions. Critics are an expected consequence, I guess.

Good weekend and thanks for your attention.
Leandro


(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Sam Lanning
I'm sorry Angel...
Post by Angel Stoleski
Exactly, besides TextSecure failed big time with this. It put american
stupidity before real life needs and use of encryption.
None of this has anything to do with "american stupidity", and that term
is going to be deeply offensive to many people on this mailing list (I
am writing this as a non-american).
Firstly, it's not stupidity at all, the vast majority of people (in ALL
nations), are not going to be crypto experts, and for those people, the
UI/UX you had with having to deal with both SMS and data (some encrypted
some not) in the same app is confusing. It is not clear at all what is
going on to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of crypto,
which are most people.
Regards,
Sam.
Luca Burelli
2015-03-14 21:28:16 UTC
Permalink
<html><head></head><body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">!</div> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br style="display:initial"></div> <div style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div> <table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><b>Da: </b>Leandro Salvador</div><div><b>Inviato: </b>sabato 14 marzo 2015 22:27</div><div><b>A: </b>Sam Lanning</div><div><b>Rispondi a: </b>Leandro Salvador</div><div><b>Cc: </b>***@lists.riseup.net‎</div><div><b>Oggetto: </b>Re: [whispersystems] A brief suggestion about a future abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(186, 188, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div>‎<br><div id="_originalContent" style=""><p dir="ltr">Hi Sam!</p>
<p dir="ltr">"Firstly, it's not stupidity at all, the vast majority of people (in ALL<br>
nations), are not going to be crypto experts, and for those people, the<br>
UI/UX you had with having to deal with both SMS and data (some encrypted<br>
some not) in the same app is confusing. It is not clear at all what is<br>
going on to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of crypto,<br>
which are most people."</p>
<p dir="ltr">Buddy, I didn't get your point. What is the correlation between the "basic understanding of crypto", and the understanding of that the user has (had!) the possibility of send over two channels?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The old TextSecure offered the possibility to SMS messages exclusively over data, exclusively over SMS, or both. None connection with the crypto magic and ir complexity, don't you agree?</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the motivation of Moxie and McGinty was some difficulties impossible to fix, is comprehensible, even this difficulties being a mystery to me yet. But the UI/UX already was fine and, in a limit, any regular user could choose to send only over data.</p>
<p dir="ltr">By the way, considering that the crypto SMS machinery already was developed and worked, why they deleted the feature instead of change the default configurations and offer the crypto SMS to whose needs and uses (used!) it?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The developers don't have to give any satisfactions of their motivations, but they gave in that blog post, nice. Anyway, in my perception, there are a bit of mystery on that argument that it's expensive/hard to maintain the crypto SMS. I don't understand it in a developer to developer basis/argument, do you? If yes, please, share with us. I'm a Java developer, you can use a language for another developer, please.</p>
<p dir="ltr">By the way, all my consideration to the gorgeous work made by all the TextSecure developers until now. I hope any critics be received as a normal thing in a community, what doesn't mean the criticise don't recognize the efforts and the value of the people. If just eulogy is accepted and don't agree or make respectful critics aren't, it wouldn't be a community. This topic, by the way, treats exactly about "a brief suggestion about a future abandoning of Encrypted SMS TextSecure feature". The feature was abandoned ignoring any suggestions. Critics are an expected consequence, I guess.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Good weekend and thanks for your attention.<br>
Leandro<br><br><br></p> <p dir="ltr">(Enviado via Linux Android.)</p> <div class="gmail_quote">Em 14/03/2015 17:47, "Sam Lanning" &lt;<a href="mailto:***@samlanning.com">***@samlanning.com</a>&gt; escreveu:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm sorry Angel...<br>
<br>
On 14/03/15 20:17, Angel Stoleski wrote:<br>
&gt; Exactly, besides TextSecure failed big time with this. It put american<br>
&gt; stupidity before real life needs and use of encryption.<br>
<br>
None of this has anything to do with "american stupidity", and that term<br>
is going to be deeply offensive to many people on this mailing list (I<br>
am writing this as a non-american).<br>
<br>
Firstly, it's not stupidity at all, the vast majority of people (in ALL<br>
nations), are not going to be crypto experts, and for those people, the<br>
UI/UX you had with having to deal with both SMS and data (some encrypted<br>
some not) in the same app is confusing. It is not clear at all what is<br>
going on to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of crypto,<br>
which are most people.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sam.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
<br><!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>
Sam Lanning
2015-03-14 23:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Hi Leandro,
Post by Leandro Salvador
Buddy, I didn't get your point. What is the correlation between the
"basic understanding of crypto", and the understanding of that the user
has (had!) the possibility of send over two channels?
Ok perhaps I worded it badly, but what I was trying to say is you
certainly can't presume that users are going to understand the UI, and
what they should be doing. multi transports adds UI complexity.

Google tried this with Hangouts, initially using hangouts as the default
SMS app on android along with hangouts support, later on they switched
to providing a second SMS app again, changing the default behaviour due
to user confusion.

Complexity causes problems, simplicity and "just working", just works.
Multiple transports is a kind of problem that some users have trouble
wrapping their head around. For example, some people will install text
secure and then remove it, while their friends still use it, causing two
problems:

- until the push server is updated, the user when trying to respond to
a friend's SMSs will likely send push messages instead, and they won't
get through (this causes problems).

- when the friend is no longer on the push directory, but if a
"session" still exists on the text secure app, when he tries to send
messages, they will be encrypted and look like garbage the the
recipient. (this is something that i have done before accidentally, and
no joke, the recipient thought I had been kidnapped or something, trying
to reach out for help).

This is not a workflow that "just works", and so TextSecure loses
popularity, and users, and gives it bad rep etc...

Another example, Nadim Kobeissi (creator of cryptocat and peer.io)
recently posted in the mondercrypto mailing list about how some of his
users have got a little confused and sent private keys in support
requests... don't underestimate how complicated an interface can be to
users... particularly if you want widespread use...

Cheers,
Sam.
Sam Lanning
2015-03-14 23:05:18 UTC
Permalink
For the record... I'm personally against them having dropped SMS, I am
It put american stupidity before real life needs and use of encryption
Sam.
Hi Leandro,
Post by Leandro Salvador
Buddy, I didn't get your point. What is the correlation between the
"basic understanding of crypto", and the understanding of that the user
has (had!) the possibility of send over two channels?
Ok perhaps I worded it badly, but what I was trying to say is you
certainly can't presume that users are going to understand the UI, and
what they should be doing. multi transports adds UI complexity.
Google tried this with Hangouts, initially using hangouts as the default
SMS app on android along with hangouts support, later on they switched
to providing a second SMS app again, changing the default behaviour due
to user confusion.
Complexity causes problems, simplicity and "just working", just works.
Multiple transports is a kind of problem that some users have trouble
wrapping their head around. For example, some people will install text
secure and then remove it, while their friends still use it, causing two
- until the push server is updated, the user when trying to respond to
a friend's SMSs will likely send push messages instead, and they won't
get through (this causes problems).
- when the friend is no longer on the push directory, but if a
"session" still exists on the text secure app, when he tries to send
messages, they will be encrypted and look like garbage the the
recipient. (this is something that i have done before accidentally, and
no joke, the recipient thought I had been kidnapped or something, trying
to reach out for help).
This is not a workflow that "just works", and so TextSecure loses
popularity, and users, and gives it bad rep etc...
Another example, Nadim Kobeissi (creator of cryptocat and peer.io)
recently posted in the mondercrypto mailing list about how some of his
users have got a little confused and sent private keys in support
requests... don't underestimate how complicated an interface can be to
users... particularly if you want widespread use...
Cheers,
Sam.
Matej Kovacic
2015-03-15 19:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Post by Tim Harman
If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.
In one perspective yes, But...
Post by Tim Harman
Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this either
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
... I have a very practical problem. I have some contacts who do not use
data transfer. Only SMS. After that change I will not be able to
communicate with them via TextSecure.

And some does use data, but only when they are in their home network.
When they go abroad - which is quite often - their data roaming is
switched off.

Unfortunately they won't change their subscription plans. So the very
practical consequence for me will be, I will have to start to
communicate with them via unencrypted SMS'es.

So yes, removing encrypted SMS is bad for me. It is not going to help me
more.

Anyway, I understand the decision, I am gratefull for the software, but
I am not very happy with the decision.

lp, M.
Tomaž Korenika
2015-03-15 19:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted and
they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work nowadays
(Perio, Passpack, ...).
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Post by Tim Harman
If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.
In one perspective yes, But...
Post by Tim Harman
Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this either
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
... I have a very practical problem. I have some contacts who do not use
data transfer. Only SMS. After that change I will not be able to
communicate with them via TextSecure.
And some does use data, but only when they are in their home network.
When they go abroad - which is quite often - their data roaming is
switched off.
Unfortunately they won't change their subscription plans. So the very
practical consequence for me will be, I will have to start to
communicate with them via unencrypted SMS'es.
So yes, removing encrypted SMS is bad for me. It is not going to help me
more.
Anyway, I understand the decision, I am gratefull for the software, but
I am not very happy with the decision.
lp, M.
--
LP, TomaÅŸ :)
Tomaž Korenika
2015-03-15 20:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Also, they run their own CA, so their transport keys are also much more
secure than regular data telco transport.
Also, typo. Peerio not Perio. :)
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Hi,
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted and
they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work nowadays
(Perio, Passpack, ...).
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Post by Tim Harman
If what you're talking about below REALLY applies to you, I can't
understand why you think having encrypted SMS being removed is bad. It's
going to help you more.
In one perspective yes, But...
Post by Tim Harman
Of course, I think we both know you don't actually care about this
either
Post by Tim Harman
way and just want to complain loudly because you feel something is being
"taken" from you.
... I have a very practical problem. I have some contacts who do not use
data transfer. Only SMS. After that change I will not be able to
communicate with them via TextSecure.
And some does use data, but only when they are in their home network.
When they go abroad - which is quite often - their data roaming is
switched off.
Unfortunately they won't change their subscription plans. So the very
practical consequence for me will be, I will have to start to
communicate with them via unencrypted SMS'es.
So yes, removing encrypted SMS is bad for me. It is not going to help me
more.
Anyway, I understand the decision, I am gratefull for the software, but
I am not very happy with the decision.
lp, M.
--
LP, TomaÅŸ :)
--
LP, TomaÅŸ :)
Matej Kovacic
2015-03-15 21:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted
and they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work
nowadays (Perio, Passpack, ...).
Wow! And how they deliver (encrypted) message to the right destination
without traffic data?


:-)

Regards,

M.
Tomaž Korenika
2015-03-15 21:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted
and they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work
nowadays (Perio, Passpack, ...).
Wow! And how they deliver (encrypted) message to the right destination
without traffic data?
Contact data is also encrypted. I'm assuming the service will work without
exposing the actual number :)
Post by Matej Kovacic
Hi,
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted
and they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work
nowadays (Perio, Passpack, ...).
Wow! And how they deliver (encrypted) message to the right destination
without traffic data?
:-)
Regards,
M.
--
LP, TomaÅŸ :)
Matej Kovacic
2015-03-15 21:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Contact data is also encrypted. I'm assuming the service will work
without exposing the actual number :)
It doesn't matter. The owner/creator of the system can always link the
anonymised ID with the endpoint.

But it really doesn't matter. As I said, I trust them more than telcos.
I am also accepting their decision for abandoning SMS and understand
reasons for it, but I am not happy about it. Yes, I have "selfish"
reasons for not being happy. But it seems I am not the only one who will
have problems with data transfer only.

Anyway, I believe this problems will vanish over the time, as
penetration of data transfer increases.

Regards,

M.
Heinz Repp
2015-03-15 22:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tomaž Korenika
Post by Matej Kovacic
Post by Tim Harman
The telco can't see any of that via the data channel.
We all know that. However, now Whispersystems can see all traffic data.
However, I trust Whispersystems much much more than our local telcos.
Thats false, All they see is white noise, since the data is encrypted
and they dont have the keys. Much like many encrypted services work
nowadays (Perio, Passpack, ...).
Wow! And how they deliver (encrypted) message to the right destination
without traffic data?
Contact data is also encrypted. I'm assuming the service will work without
exposing the actual number
How Secure is TextSecure?
by Frosch, Mainka, Bader, Bergsma, Schwenk & Holz
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/904.pdf
The textsecure server sees all metadata. The telcos only see the traffic
to and from the textsecure server, and GCM/APN delivers the encrypted
message or at least its announcement to the receiver. So all except the
textsecure server see only one endpoint of the conversation. The message
itself is end-to-end encrypted.

Heinz
Steffen Märcker
2015-03-15 20:26:22 UTC
Permalink
This situation applies to me, too. Fully. :-( Additionally, in my very limited personal experience enc. SMS caused me less trouble than data so far.

Best, Steffen
Post by Matej Kovacic
... I have a very practical problem. I have some contacts who do not use
data transfer. Only SMS. After that change I will not be able to
communicate with them via TextSecure.
And some does use data, but only when they are in their home network.
When they go abroad - which is quite often - their data roaming is
switched off.
Unfortunately they won't change their subscription plans. So the very
practical consequence for me will be, I will have to start to
communicate with them via unencrypted SMS'es.
So yes, removing encrypted SMS is bad for me. It is not going to help me
more.
Anyway, I understand the decision, I am gratefull for the software, but
I am not very happy with the decision.
lp, M.
Angel Stoleski
2015-03-13 16:03:05 UTC
Permalink
People like Boris Wagner don't deserve to have access to textsecure, he
doesnt even have clue what the app does. Nor he could appreciate the things
that moxie and the team did with it.
Post by Boris Wagner
Post by Tristan
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
Oh, c'mon! TextSecure is neither a life-jacket nor a gun. It does not
kill people nor does it save lifes. It's simply an app that let's people
chat and does some weird and insane crypto-magic under the hood.
#359
2015-03-13 15:31:33 UTC
Permalink
oh, come on, this debate is getting ridiculous and childish! encrypted
SMSes are gone, the code is free and open. if you want encrypted SMS,
fork it. now stop whining and get on with your life...


- jure
Post by Tristan
Stefan is quoting from Moxie's blog. But, frankly, it seriously
worries me that the person driving this project seems to be so out of
touch with the global situation. And abandoning features important to
people who seriously need them, like the very real and very serious
situation of those living in war zones, makes me wonder what the
actual driving forces for this project are.
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Leandro Salvador
"It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that
SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places."
Post by Tristan
Stefan, sorry man, but it is the opposite of what you said. The SMS
plans are cheaper, it when they are not absolutely free. Data plans
in countries as Brazil are expensive and limited to things as 200MB
per month in pre paid plans, 500MB in pos paid, with connections in
Edge (2,5G) in most cities, HSDPA (3G in great cities, and 4G in Sao
Paulo and Rio, for example. People here uses WhatsApp, but it is
normally offline in transit and online when with Wi-Fi available.
Everybody sends a SMS when the message has to be delivered
immediately. Now, with the top down decision taken by the TextSecure
donors, only unencrypted SMS. For whose SMS is not useful in its
concrete reality, is comprehensible to defend the end of SMS channel.
A little solidarity with reality that are not ours is a good
principle to be taken, anyway, I guess.
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
utterly need it, but would not confuse the masses of uninformed users
who don't care about transport protocols, key exchanges and so on.
I think there's a misconception here about the use of OTT text versus
SMS, which is also apparent in the blog post [0]. People *do* care
about the transport, specifically because always-on mobile data is
usually not a given for both communication partners (for several
reasons: flatrate data plans, battery consumption, coverage, roaming)
and thus OTT text is used *for different situations/communication
patterns* than SMS.
My observations in Germany but also in India, Nepal, Indonesia,
Malaysia and some more countries have been that OTT texting is wildly
popular, but for longer chat conversations and group chats, while SMS
is still the method used if reliability or a prompt response is
wanted, also between smartphone users.
In WhatsApp, this is somewhoat countered by presence ('last seen') and
the delivery / seen report, which both have their own privacy
implications.
That SMS is not going away quickly is also reflected in the view of
analysts (e.g. [1], [2]) even if there is obviously more being written
about a quickly growing technology than the incumbent tech, even if
it's still huge, usage and revenue-wise.
In my opinion, only the reason #4 ("It’s holding us back.") is the
really valid and strong one; it's a strategic decision, and while I
wouldn't agree with it I find it understandable that this also
excludes keeping SMS as transport as an option.
Stefan
[]
Post by Tristan
Post by Stefan Sayer
https://whispersystems.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/
"You monsters, what about the people who can’t afford data?
It’s common for people in the US and Europe to assume that SMS is the
accessible option for people in the global south, but the truth is
just the opposite. It’s primarily just the US and parts of Europe that
have affordable/unlimited SMS plans. For the most part, the global
south is hungry for overlay services that they can use instead of SMS,
precisely because SMS is so expensive in those places. Just look at
the places where market penetration of overlay services like Viber,
Line, and WhatsApp have been the highest. The phrase “WhatsApp number”
has even replaced the phrase “phone number” in many parts of south
america."
[1]
Post by Tristan
Post by Stefan Sayer
http://www.portioresearch.com/en/blog/2013/ott-messaging-apps-and-social-networks.aspx
[2]
Post by Tristan
Post by Stefan Sayer
http://www.netsize.com/sms-alive-and-kicking-and-a-poll-on-ott-versus-sms/
Moxie Marlinspike
2015-03-13 19:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan
Stefan is quoting from Moxie's blog. But, frankly, it seriously worries
me that the person driving this project seems to be so out of touch with
the global situation. And abandoning features important to people who
seriously need them, like the very real and very serious situation of
those living in war zones, makes me wonder what the actual driving
forces for this project are.
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
It's hard for me to understand how people can claim they're the ones who
are really "in touch" with TextSecure users (implying that we're out of
touch), when we're the ones who are literally drowning in support
requests, issues, emails, and feedback every single day -- much of which
is the result of confusion that arises from supporting encrypted SMS.

We get a lot of help, but at the end of the day we're the ones on the
hook for providing support and developing the product. I've written
exhaustively about why we're removing support for the encrypted SMS/MMS
transport, so I won't do that again here again. However, I would
suggest that you try spending a single day in our support queue before
continuing to tell us what idiots we are. Then consider what it's like
to spend every day in our support queue.

In short, while it's possible for you to rage-quit TextSecure, I'm in
the unfortunate position where it's not possible for me to rage-quit you.

- moxie
--
http://www.thoughtcrime.org
Tristan
2015-03-14 19:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Hey Moxie,

So, after having time to cool, I think may have gotten carried away. I
never suggested you were stupid, though I absolutely went too far when I
questioned your motives; for that I apologize.

I don't claim to be more in touch with the users of TextSecure, I'm
suggesting that the features for a secure communication program shouldn't
be dictated by popularity. I realize that you are in a difficult situation,
that users are easily confused, etc. My point is that, in this particular
situation, perhaps the needs of the minority living in truly dangerous
enviroments should be prioritized over first-world problems.
Post by Moxie Marlinspike
Post by Tristan
Stefan is quoting from Moxie's blog. But, frankly, it seriously worries
me that the person driving this project seems to be so out of touch with
the global situation. And abandoning features important to people who
seriously need them, like the very real and very serious situation of
those living in war zones, makes me wonder what the actual driving
forces for this project are.
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one you
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
It's hard for me to understand how people can claim they're the ones who
are really "in touch" with TextSecure users (implying that we're out of
touch), when we're the ones who are literally drowning in support
requests, issues, emails, and feedback every single day -- much of which
is the result of confusion that arises from supporting encrypted SMS.
We get a lot of help, but at the end of the day we're the ones on the
hook for providing support and developing the product. I've written
exhaustively about why we're removing support for the encrypted SMS/MMS
transport, so I won't do that again here again. However, I would
suggest that you try spending a single day in our support queue before
continuing to tell us what idiots we are. Then consider what it's like
to spend every day in our support queue.
In short, while it's possible for you to rage-quit TextSecure, I'm in
the unfortunate position where it's not possible for me to rage-quit you.
- moxie
--
http://www.thoughtcrime.org
Cl En
2015-03-13 22:22:57 UTC
Permalink
LMFAO, à la Torvalds, well done, grats.

Moxie Marlinspike <***@thoughtcrime.org> schrieb am Fr., 13. MÀr. 2015


I'm in

the unfortunate position where it's not possible for me to rage-quit you.

- moxie
q***@hush.com
2015-03-17 09:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Dear Moxie,

TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?

Original message:

To sum up my previous entry to this thread:
1. Thanks to you and the other developers for creating these apps
and services!
2. I respect the decision, it is yours to assess and make.
3. The stated reason that is is not sustainable to continue to
support (and maintain?) the SMS transport layer is a sufficient and
unassailable justification.
4. The other stated reasons are, as have become apparent, arguable -
and also unnecessary distractions as you've shown yourselves firm
in your conclusion about the supportability of the layer.
5. For the situation myself, and it seems others on this list, are
in, encrypted SMS are the essential feature for us. The reason it
is essential is that being dependant on having mobile data is not
an option for cost, coverage, battery drain and/or reliability
reasons.
6. As TextSecure will will not provide this feature going forward I
find myself in a position of trying to find another solution I find
as trustworthy.
7. The only other proven provider I currently know that provides
this feature/capability is SECTRA, for example their Panthon
product[1]. Both NATO and the EU have apparently made another
assessment on using SMS, regarding metadata etc, and they have
certified the product for some level of classified information.
They are of course extremely expensive and proprietary so they are
not really an alternative for most people and situations.
8. So, I reiterate my questions from before: Is it possible that
you will break out the SMS capability? Is there another app with
that capability (that you would feel comfortable recommending)? Or
is the only solution to stay on 2.6.0 and hope no vulnerabilities
are found?

Best regards


[1] http://communications.sectra.com/security-
solutions/phanton/specifications



Sent using Hushmail

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:43:28 +0300 "Moxie Marlinspike"
Post by Tristan
Post by Tristan
Stefan is quoting from Moxie's blog. But, frankly, it seriously
worries
Post by Tristan
me that the person driving this project seems to be so out of
touch with
Post by Tristan
the global situation. And abandoning features important to
people who
Post by Tristan
seriously need them, like the very real and very serious
situation of
Post by Tristan
those living in war zones, makes me wonder what the actual
driving
Post by Tristan
forces for this project are.
Buck: People rage-quit video games, this is real life. In one
you
Post by Tristan
re-spawn when you die, in the other you don't.
It's hard for me to understand how people can claim they're the
ones who
are really "in touch" with TextSecure users (implying that we're
out of
touch), when we're the ones who are literally drowning in support
requests, issues, emails, and feedback every single day -- much of
which
is the result of confusion that arises from supporting encrypted
SMS.
We get a lot of help, but at the end of the day we're the ones on
the
hook for providing support and developing the product. I've
written
exhaustively about why we're removing support for the encrypted
SMS/MMS
transport, so I won't do that again here again. However, I would
suggest that you try spending a single day in our support queue
before
continuing to tell us what idiots we are. Then consider what it's
like
to spend every day in our support queue.
In short, while it's possible for you to rage-quit TextSecure, I'm
in
the unfortunate position where it's not possible for me to rage-
quit you.
- moxie
--
http://www.thoughtcrime.org
Scott Robinson
2015-03-17 09:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by q***@hush.com
TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Leandro Salvador
2015-03-17 15:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Scott! The app seems be great, but I'm not sure it's trustable. I
have doubts because they have three apps, a TextSecure-SMS, a
TextSecure-DATA, and a RedPhone-VOICE clones/forks. It's great, but... they
don't tell it's WhisperSystems forks! The user that discover these apps via
Play Store (and don't know the original) will never know this. I have some
doubts about the intentions of a group that don't share it's a fork and,
consequently, am not sure to trust they software. Do you trust or know the
group?

SMS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
DATA:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.messaging
VOICE: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.voice

(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by Sean Comeau
Post by q***@hush.com
TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Scott Robinson
2015-03-17 17:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Every one of their github repos clearly state they're forks from
WhisperSystems.
Post by Leandro Salvador
Thanks Scott! The app seems be great, but I'm not sure it's trustable. I
have doubts because they have three apps, a TextSecure-SMS, a TextSecure-
DATA, and a RedPhone-VOICE clones/forks. It's great, but... they don't
tell it's WhisperSystems forks! The user that discover these apps via Play
Store (and don't know the original) will never know this. I have some
doubts about the intentions of a group that don't share it's a fork and,
consequently, am not sure to trust they software. Do you trust or know the
group?
SMS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
DATA: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.securecomcode.messaging
VOICE: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.voice
Post by Leandro Salvador
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?
Post by Sean Comeau
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Sam Lanning
2015-03-17 17:59:22 UTC
Permalink
They did make the decision to wipe the commit graph and start a fresh
history though... which I consider questionable! It certainly makes it
harder to immediately see what the differences are between the fork and the
original.

Sam.
Post by Scott Robinson
Every one of their github repos clearly state they're forks from
WhisperSystems.
Thanks Scott! The app seems be great, but I'm not sure it's trustable. I
have doubts because they have three apps, a TextSecure-SMS, a
TextSecure-DATA, and a RedPhone-VOICE clones/forks. It's great, but... they
don't tell it's WhisperSystems forks! The user that discover these apps via
Play Store (and don't know the original) will never know this. I have some
doubts about the intentions of a group that don't share it's a fork and,
consequently, am not sure to trust they software. Do you trust or know the
group?
SMS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.messaging
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.voice
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
Post by q***@hush.com
TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Scott Robinson
2015-03-17 18:05:05 UTC
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Post by Sam Lanning
They did make the decision to wipe the commit graph and start a fresh
history though... which I consider questionable! It certainly makes it
harder to immediately see what the differences are between the fork and
the original.
Sam.
Post by Scott Robinson
__
Every one of their github repos clearly state they're forks from
WhisperSystems.
Post by Leandro Salvador
Thanks Scott! The app seems be great, but I'm not sure it's trustable. I
have doubts because they have three apps, a TextSecure-SMS, a
TextSecure-DATA, and a RedPhone-VOICE clones/forks. It's great, but...
they don't tell it's WhisperSystems forks! The user that discover these
apps via Play Store (and don't know the original) will never know this.
I have some doubts about the intentions of a group that don't share it's
a fork and, consequently, am not sure to trust they software. Do you
trust or know the group?
SMS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.securecomcode.text
DATA: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.securecomcode.messaging
VOICE: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.voice
Post by Sam Lanning
Post by Scott Robinson
Post by Leandro Salvador
(Enviado via Linux Android.)
TL;DR
Thanks for the hard work! I trust you and the other developers so I
ask: do you know of another solution for trustworthy encrypted
messaging over SMS?
Post by Scott Robinson
Post by Leandro Salvador
Post by Sean Comeau
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.securecomcode.text
https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text
Sam Lanning
2015-03-17 18:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Robinson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Unfortunately that does not instill confidence either... :-/
Patrick Connolly
2015-03-17 19:35:18 UTC
Permalink
I'd personally never feel comfortable using it given that the
maintainer thought obliterating history was a good idea, but fwiw:

https://github.com/Securecom/Securecom-Text/issues/3
Post by Sam Lanning
Post by Scott Robinson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Unfortunately that does not instill confidence either... :-/
Nick Morrison
2015-03-18 21:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Connolly
I'd personally never feel comfortable using it given that the
maintainer thought obliterating history was a good idea
hear hear

Scott Robinson
2015-03-19 02:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Connolly
I'd personally never feel comfortable using it given that the
maintainer thought obliterating history was a good idea
hear hear…
Isn't this the wrong place to voice these complaints?
q***@hush.com
2015-03-19 05:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Robinson
On 17 Mar 2015, at 20:35, Patrick Connolly
I'd personally never feel comfortable using it given that the
maintainer thought obliterating history was a good idea
hear hear…
Isn't this the wrong place to voice these complaints?
My original question, that you replied to here on this mailing list, was if the developers knew of any trustworthy replacement to to-be-former encrypted SMS functionality. In my view, as you suggested Securecom Text, a brief discussions about its apparent trustworthiness does belong here. And the discussions so far haven't given me much reason for trust - yet.

I've looked through the EFF Scorecard and couln't find another solution with the highest score doing SMS. Anyone else?



Sent using Hushmail
Scott Robinson
2015-03-19 05:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by q***@hush.com
My original question, that you replied to here on this mailing list, was
if the developers knew of any trustworthy replacement to to-be-former
encrypted SMS functionality.
I imagine "the developers" almost immediately muted this thread as:

* It's asking for a technology and trust recommendation.
* It has nothing— anymore— to do with Whispersystems OSS.
* They're already "drowning in support requests, issues, emails, and
feedback" so are a bit busy.

You've search the web. You've looked at the EFF scorecard. There are
heaps of Android user mailing lists you could ask in. But, it sounds
like you've established that nothing else exists that quite meets your
needs.

Time to start to work or start to wait.
q***@hush.com
2015-03-20 06:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Scott,

I apologize for my rudeness. I never thanked you for replying to my question, being the only one coming with a suggestion. I appreciated it! My only explanation (no excuse) is that my internet access is not very reliable (!) and the conversation had drifted away when I could log in again. I still believe that for a brief period, this mailing list is a good place to discuss alternative solutions as they are needed because of the decision by the TextSecure developers.

Dear all, if anyone is still interested, my tally is such:
Securecom Text: fork from TextSecure. Unknown maintainer (to me at least), currently no independent audit and obscure traceability from TextSecure. I assume it has compatibility with TextSecure which would facilitate transition. I also assume it doesn't have a way for the users to know if the recipient has Securecom Text or TextSecure as that would require a server etc.

SECTRA; Very reliable, inspected and approved by NATO and EU. Very expensive.

Secure Messenger, by chiralsoftware.com: They are a US, CA-based software company almost exclusively serving DoD. When I asked if they were independently audited I was assured that there are no backdoor in the code but as "Chiral Software is mainly a DoD contractor, you might not accept my claims."

I haven't found any other systems on EFF:s scorecard or actually in the google play store that does encrypted sms. I hope this summary can be useful and if anyone have anything additional to add, I am interested!

Best



Sent using Hushmail
Post by q***@hush.com
Post by q***@hush.com
My original question, that you replied to here on this mailing
list, was
Post by q***@hush.com
if the developers knew of any trustworthy replacement to to-be-
former
Post by q***@hush.com
encrypted SMS functionality.
* It's asking for a technology and trust recommendation.
* It has nothing— anymore— to do with Whispersystems OSS.
* They're already "drowning in support requests, issues, emails, and
feedback" so are a bit busy.
You've search the web. You've looked at the EFF scorecard. There are
heaps of Android user mailing lists you could ask in. But, it
sounds
like you've established that nothing else exists that quite meets your
needs.
Time to start to work or start to wait.
Chris Huston
2015-03-20 18:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Greetings,

I've been a lurker in this group for at least the last 2 years and this
will be my first post to everyone following these threads. Considering the,
for lack of a better word, controversy surrounding getting rid of encrypted
SMS, I can simply speak as a user who cares deeply about the future of the
mobile landscape.

When WhisperSystems hit the scene years ago, it was reserved for the
power-users. You had to have an Android phone that was unlocked, rooted,
and you needed to install a WS Android fork to be able to access the
security features of the suite. In fact, if you didn't have a Nexus you
were pretty much SOL.

Moxie and crew did a wonderful thing when Textsecure and Redphone opened up
to the everyday user. Just download it and it does as it says. Or it did. I
stressed to everyone, until basically this crappy announcement, that you
HAD to have these services to protect yourself from, really, the government
at large more than anything (and service providers who will give away your
info at the drop of a hat just to cover their own asses).

Now things have come to a head. People, everyday users, *are just starting
to realize protecting their data and identity on their mobile device is
important.* Moxie, you understood this YEARS ago. I consider your
applications as setting precedent. WS showed people that applications
existed that could securely protect your messaging and data easily without
having to have a BS in computer science to use it.

By bailing on SMS, WS is sending a misleading message to users: We can
still encrypt SMS (over data). This in and of itself is kind of sends the
wrong message. You want the laymans to use this app. Shit, you want this
app to reach 100M downloads. That would be disruptive to the industry. But
don't do it by sending the wrong message. Anyone who has been reading these
threads may have at least a modicum of knowledge to know that data channel
encryption is just not practical (as outlined by many others) and it still
carries much too much meta information by sending that information through
data channels.

So, now I'm stuck with a fork called Securecom Text. Another person in the
thread recommended it. I have yet to use it, but the impression here is
that WS has given up on creating a necessary form of secure communication
and instead is allowing other companies to fork your deprecated software.
Do I trust Securecom as much as WS with my data? Hell no. It's a fork. I
can't possibly recommend a clone on a large scale when, really, none of us
know what data they encrypt, whether it even is truly encrypted even to
Securecom, and whether Securecom has any history with getting served
subpoenas and honoring them at the expense of the user who wanted a secure
service.

Don't let the forks do what WS paved the way for. You guys deserve to
create the app that everyone needs and everyone trusts. Don't mislead by
saying data channel encryption is enough because that's a straight-faced
lie.

Our "Right to Privacy" is becoming more tenuous and a bigger gray area
every single day. WS is just eliminating one of the best hurdles we had to
protect it.

Mobile security is an industry that will inevitably explode over the next
couple years. People carry too much personal data on their devices with
complete abandon to security. Don't open the floodgates by abandoning SMS
encryption and paving the way for "Candy-Crush-Esque" encryption clones
that will inevitably do more bad than good. Laymans will become confused,
overwhelmed, and disinterested if they see 200+ of what has the appearance
of being the same app (but with adds, bloatware, and (perhaps most
ironically) data collection).

Please, Moxie, WhisperSystems is our only hope for the masses. It's the
Attack of the Clones without you.
Post by q***@hush.com
Dear Scott,
I apologize for my rudeness. I never thanked you for replying to my
question, being the only one coming with a suggestion. I appreciated it! My
only explanation (no excuse) is that my internet access is not very
reliable (!) and the conversation had drifted away when I could log in
again. I still believe that for a brief period, this mailing list is a good
place to discuss alternative solutions as they are needed because of the
decision by the TextSecure developers.
Securecom Text: fork from TextSecure. Unknown maintainer (to me at least),
currently no independent audit and obscure traceability from TextSecure. I
assume it has compatibility with TextSecure which would facilitate
transition. I also assume it doesn't have a way for the users to know if
the recipient has Securecom Text or TextSecure as that would require a
server etc.
SECTRA; Very reliable, inspected and approved by NATO and EU. Very expensive.
Secure Messenger, by chiralsoftware.com: They are a US, CA-based software
company almost exclusively serving DoD. When I asked if they were
independently audited I was assured that there are no backdoor in the code
but as "Chiral Software is mainly a DoD contractor, you might not accept my
claims."
I haven't found any other systems on EFF:s scorecard or actually in the
google play store that does encrypted sms. I hope this summary can be
useful and if anyone have anything additional to add, I am interested!
Best
Sent using Hushmail
Post by q***@hush.com
Post by q***@hush.com
My original question, that you replied to here on this mailing
list, was
Post by q***@hush.com
if the developers knew of any trustworthy replacement to to-be-
former
Post by q***@hush.com
encrypted SMS functionality.
* It's asking for a technology and trust recommendation.
* It has nothing— anymore— to do with Whispersystems OSS.
* They're already "drowning in support requests, issues, emails, and
feedback" so are a bit busy.
You've search the web. You've looked at the EFF scorecard. There are
heaps of Android user mailing lists you could ask in. But, it
sounds
like you've established that nothing else exists that quite meets your
needs.
Time to start to work or start to wait.
Eric Hollander
2015-03-20 19:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Hello everyone,

Some members of this list alerted me that there's some discussion of
Chiral Software's Secure Messenger. I have never heard of RiseUp.net is
and I hope it's appropriate for me to post here. If not, please excuse
me and I will quit the group.

How Secure Messenger works: all transport is over MMS. We are using
ordinary X509 certs for key exchange and ordinary Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) for messages. Both of these generate objects which are
always larger than 140 characters, so there's no way we can fit that
message into SMS unfortunately. We could split the communication up,
and use one SMS to establish a session key, etc... and we have gotten
requests to do it, but we haven't gotten around to it yet.

One major advantage of MMS for users is that there's no central server
where we (Chiral Software) store or monitor anything. We never have
access to keys, messages (ciphertext or plaintext), or anything. We
don't even know who has installed it, other than the statistics on our
Google Play store account (number of installs by country, that kind of
thing).

There is no backdoor. Anyone can verify that we are using ordinary X509
and CMS. That doesn't prove there's no backdoor, such as using weak
keys, but then again, an audit also doesn't prove there's no backdoor,
because it's widely understood that there are sophisticated backdoor
techniques that are very difficult to detect. We are using both the
built-in Android crypto libraries, and BC for doing certificate
generation, so if there are weaknesses in those, we are impacted by that
of course. I'm 100% open to an audit if someone can suggest how to do
that. This project was not funded by any contract or external investors
so I can't devote too much resources, but if there's a way to do an
audit that's cheap, I'm open to it.

Here is the download link:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chiralsoftware.securemessenger.mmsapi15.hybrid

We are planning some other future products with more in-depth security
features as well. We have some amazing security features to show, we
just need eager users!

Thanks everyone and I will try to answer questions if I can.
Odinson Aesir
2015-03-20 20:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

Re to Chris, as well as to the people in this mailing list, I have been a
lurker for basically my entire adult life with more than a decade of
*fieldwork* in technical ops in a three letter intelligence agency (retired
some time ago and still trying to find my long lost or more likely
non-existent social skills).
I have used TextSecure since it turned mainstream, for encrypted SMS only,
because of the following reasons:

1) it is unbeatable reliable - in the year 2010+ SMS gets delivered from
India to Brasil, in 99.999% of times.

2) The equipment required to tamper with SMS transport (and I'm only
talking about SMS transport, not the crypto behind TS) professionally,
starts at 500K USD. Compare that with the 400 USD required to buy a laptop,
a WiFi adapter with packet injection capabilities and start MitM-ing in the
target's WiFi network
(On that issue, the ones that will argue that a Stingray / IMSI catcher can
be made for 2000 USD, or the likes, have never used a professional IMSI
catcher.

3) Pairing SMS tampering capabilities with MitM capabilities that would
have the slimmest of chances to break the TS crypto, would require
integration and manufacturer implication that I've never heard of. I'm not
saying that it couldn't be done. I'm saying that Dalai Lama or Ed Snowden
would add some other layers of protection / anonymity to this equation 'cos
I wouldn't see any organization leverage resources for this result for
anything other than this type of target.

4) It provided an encrypted password-protected endpoint storage to evade
collection attempts by the likes of MicroSystemation XRY or Cellebrite UFED.

The Cons where acceptable if one used burner phones:

1) not having a clear and definitive way of identifying MitM attacks by
non-technical people such as the two words that you can confirm when using
RedPhone
2) the metadata appearing on CDRs
3) sometimes the two parties would get "un-synced" (who knows, perhaps
intentionally :) ), and SMSes would arrive garbled, but it would usually be
solved with a re-negotiation of keys and then, business as usual.
4) em.. nope, can't think of another one of the top of my head.

As such, I am immensely saddened by the fact that WS has decided to
discontinue supporting the encrypted SMS in favour of the encrypted IM.
On the same page, there is another thing that I fail to understand, and I
really appreciate any feedback on this, as I haven't really seen it
mentioned in this thread:
Moxie and the team went public to say that they have worked and helped
WhatsApp to implement end-to-end encryption for the WhatsApp
<https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/>... app. As such, what is the
difference between TextSecure-with-no-encrypted-SMS and WhatsApp?

There is a lot more to write about this (transport routes for the new
service, MitM indicators for non-technical people and the list is so long),
and while *I DO respect the right of the developers to decide whatever they
think it's best,* I can't accept the fact that security-oriented people can
claim that dropping SMS in favour for "data transport" makes sense from a
security standpoint. And it makes me think of other things which make me
want to reach for my tinfoil hat. (Kinda like why some people don't use any
GPG / PGP product released AFTER Philip Zimmerman got thoroughly
investigated.)

Oh, and another thing. While I can hide the phone number of an SMS ;),
which would effectively conceal the identity of the sender, I have yet to
see a packet not picked up by a tcpdump.
Just a thought, just a thought.
Chris Huston
2015-03-20 21:18:10 UTC
Permalink
To quote, "what is the difference between TextSecure-with-no-encrypted-SMS
and WhatsApp?"

Popularity, I think. It appears to me now that there is literally zero
difference between the protocols (although WA very likely collects data
from their users - ironic, but the irony is lost on the end-user.)

Total shot-in-the-dark answer from me, but I guess I'm not the only one who
is confused.
Post by Odinson Aesir
Hi all,
Re to Chris, as well as to the people in this mailing list, I have been a
lurker for basically my entire adult life with more than a decade of
*fieldwork* in technical ops in a three letter intelligence agency
(retired some time ago and still trying to find my long lost or more likely
non-existent social skills).
I have used TextSecure since it turned mainstream, for encrypted SMS only,
1) it is unbeatable reliable - in the year 2010+ SMS gets delivered from
India to Brasil, in 99.999% of times.
2) The equipment required to tamper with SMS transport (and I'm only
talking about SMS transport, not the crypto behind TS) professionally,
starts at 500K USD. Compare that with the 400 USD required to buy a laptop,
a WiFi adapter with packet injection capabilities and start MitM-ing in the
target's WiFi network
(On that issue, the ones that will argue that a Stingray / IMSI catcher
can be made for 2000 USD, or the likes, have never used a professional IMSI
catcher.
3) Pairing SMS tampering capabilities with MitM capabilities that would
have the slimmest of chances to break the TS crypto, would require
integration and manufacturer implication that I've never heard of. I'm not
saying that it couldn't be done. I'm saying that Dalai Lama or Ed Snowden
would add some other layers of protection / anonymity to this equation 'cos
I wouldn't see any organization leverage resources for this result for
anything other than this type of target.
4) It provided an encrypted password-protected endpoint storage to evade
collection attempts by the likes of MicroSystemation XRY or Cellebrite UFED.
1) not having a clear and definitive way of identifying MitM attacks by
non-technical people such as the two words that you can confirm when using
RedPhone
2) the metadata appearing on CDRs
3) sometimes the two parties would get "un-synced" (who knows, perhaps
intentionally :) ), and SMSes would arrive garbled, but it would usually be
solved with a re-negotiation of keys and then, business as usual.
4) em.. nope, can't think of another one of the top of my head.
As such, I am immensely saddened by the fact that WS has decided to
discontinue supporting the encrypted SMS in favour of the encrypted IM.
On the same page, there is another thing that I fail to understand, and I
really appreciate any feedback on this, as I haven't really seen it
Moxie and the team went public to say that they have worked and helped
WhatsApp to implement end-to-end encryption for the WhatsApp
<https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/>... app. As such, what is the
difference between TextSecure-with-no-encrypted-SMS and WhatsApp?
There is a lot more to write about this (transport routes for the new
service, MitM indicators for non-technical people and the list is so long),
and while *I DO respect the right of the developers to decide whatever
they think it's best,* I can't accept the fact that security-oriented
people can claim that dropping SMS in favour for "data transport" makes
sense from a security standpoint. And it makes me think of other things
which make me want to reach for my tinfoil hat. (Kinda like why some people
don't use any GPG / PGP product released AFTER Philip Zimmerman got
thoroughly investigated.)
Oh, and another thing. While I can hide the phone number of an SMS ;),
which would effectively conceal the identity of the sender, I have yet to
see a packet not picked up by a tcpdump.
Just a thought, just a thought.
Loading...