[whispersystems] Web app for Signal

Discussion:

Praveen Sanap

2017-09-09 15:25:55 UTC

Hi everybody.

I was wondering why is there no Web app for Signal.
I remember when I used to use telegram desktop and then the web-app came along i switched entirely to that because it was so much more convenient.
Is there any technical reason as to why there is no Web App as it can be less secure than Chrome app or other native apps.

Currently I see a discussion on making an electron app which is thing is a solid step.
But It would have been awesome to see some efforts for making a web app.
All major messaging apps have web app version.

So my question is Is Signal disadvantaged - due to its design for local storage and/or because its open source on both client and server side - that its not pragmatic to to make an Web app.

Regard.

jakob

2017-09-11 11:15:36 UTC

Permalink

Hi Praveen,

In short, yes, storing messages locally and locally *only* means that
there is no webserver that can and will hold that data for you to
retrieve on any device.

This is a usability limitation, but a strong security feature. Consider
Telegram, where your complete message history seems to reside on the
server, for you to pull from anywhere, with only so much as a
password... *shudders*.

Anyone has an idea how Whatsapp does it? Do they have a non-ephemeral
encryption going on for received messages?

Jakob

Post by Praveen Sanap
Hi everybody.
I was wondering why is there no Web app for Signal.
I remember when I used to use telegram desktop and then the web-app came along i switched entirely to that because it was so much more convenient.
Is there any technical reason as to why there is no Web App as it can be less secure than Chrome app or other native apps.
Currently I see a discussion on making an electron app which is thing is a solid step.
But It would have been awesome to see some efforts for making a web app.
All major messaging apps have web app version.
So my question is Is Signal disadvantaged - due to its design for local storage and/or because its open source on both client and server side - that its not pragmatic to to make an Web app.
Regard.
---
List help: <http://help.riseup.net/lists>

Shankar Kulumani

2017-09-11 11:41:23 UTC

Permalink

My understanding is that Whatsapp web connects directly to your phone. For
this reason, you cannot receive messages with your phone disconnected/off.

You create a link between your phone and the desktop app through the QR
code setup process.

This is unlike Signal, which treats the desktop as a completely separate
entity or device. The desktop app does not even require a phone once the
initial setup process is complete.

Post by jakob
Hi Praveen,
In short, yes, storing messages locally and locally *only* means that
there is no webserver that can and will hold that data for you to retrieve
on any device.
This is a usability limitation, but a strong security feature. Consider
Telegram, where your complete message history seems to reside on the
server, for you to pull from anywhere, with only so much as a password...
*shudders*.
Anyone has an idea how Whatsapp does it? Do they have a non-ephemeral
encryption going on for received messages?
Jakob
Hi everybody.
I was wondering why is there no Web app for Signal.
I remember when I used to use telegram desktop and then the web-app came along i switched entirely to that because it was so much more convenient.
Is there any technical reason as to why there is no Web App as it can be less secure than Chrome app or other native apps.
Currently I see a discussion on making an electron app which is thing is a solid step.
But It would have been awesome to see some efforts for making a web app.
All major messaging apps have web app version.
So my question is Is Signal disadvantaged - due to its design for local storage and/or because its open source on both client and server side - that its not pragmatic to to make an Web app.
Regard.
---
List help: <http://help.riseup.net/lists> <http://help.riseup.net/lists>
---
List help: <http://help.riseup.net/lists>

Nick Merrill

2017-09-11 22:49:38 UTC

Permalink

Perhaps OWS could make it so multiple clients using the same account talk

to each other using the same protections as communications between
accounts; but you first must set it up (like by scanning a QR code with
your phone, or copying a code one client gives onto another), and then
whenever both clients are online at the same time (or using the same
functionality offline messages use), the clients could keep each other's
conversations in sync, until you send a desync command in either of the
clients?

couldn't one just send a message to oneself?

if the goal is really to have one person controlling multiple accounts, the
solution as of today would be to have each account sign up with a different
(unique) phone number, which I agree might be inconvenient.

2017-09-11 15:42 GMT-07:00 TiagoTiago <

Perhaps OWS could make it so multiple clients using the same account talk
to each other using the same protections as communications between
accounts; but you first must set it up (like by scanning a QR code with
your phone, or copying a code one client gives onto another), and then
whenever both clients are online at the same time (or using the same
functionality offline messages use), the clients could keep each other's
conversations in sync, until you send a desync command in either of the
clients?

Post by Shankar Kulumani
My understanding is that Whatsapp web connects directly to your phone.
For this reason, you cannot receive messages with your phone
disconnected/off.
You create a link between your phone and the desktop app through the QR
code setup process.
This is unlike Signal, which treats the desktop as a completely separate
entity or device. The desktop app does not even require a phone once the
initial setup process is complete.

---
List help: <http://help.riseup.net/lists>

Shankar Kulumani

2017-09-11 22:56:32 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nick Merrill
if the goal is really to have one person controlling multiple accounts,
the solution as of today would be to have each account sign up with a
different (unique) phone number, which I agree might be inconvenient.

This is what I currently do to have the awesome Signal-cli ap
<https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli>p send messages to my phone. I use a
google voice number for the computer to send messages to my phone.

I also believe there are some issues on Github to address the issues of
sending messages to oneself.

Post by Nick Merrill

Perhaps OWS could make it so multiple clients using the same account

talk to each other using the same protections as communications between
accounts; but you first must set it up (like by scanning a QR code with
your phone, or copying a code one client gives onto another), and then
whenever both clients are online at the same time (or using the same
functionality offline messages use), the clients could keep each other's
conversations in sync, until you send a desync command in either of the
clients?
couldn't one just send a message to oneself?
if the goal is really to have one person controlling multiple accounts,
the solution as of today would be to have each account sign up with a
different (unique) phone number, which I agree might be inconvenient.
2017-09-11 15:42 GMT-07:00 TiagoTiago <tiagotiagot+list.riseup.net-

---
List help: <http://help.riseup.net/lists>