RockLobster Posted March 27 Posted March 27 So much misinformation being piled up in other threads that this topic deserves it's own thread: The commercial "Signal" messaging app is not secure. It does not use modern encryption, and is a known target of hackers.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 2 minutes ago, RockLobster said: So much misinformation being piled up in other threads that this topic deserves it's own thread: The commercial "Signal" messaging app is not secure. It does not use modern encryption, and is a known target of hackers. From what I read it does
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/25/2025 at 2:17 PM, jross said: Signal itself is secure! Signal, itself, is NOT secure. It has been proven to be insecure for months.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 Just now, RockLobster said: Signal, itself, is NOT secure. It has been proven to be insecure for months. Show me some evidence of that
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 Just now, Caveira said: From what I read it does You're reading from the wrong people in the wrong places. It does not use modern encryption.
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 Just now, Caveira said: Show me some evidence of that I'll do exactly that.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 1 minute ago, RockLobster said: You're reading from the wrong people in the wrong places. It does not use modern encryption. It uses aes-256 today which all of the computers in the world would take a bazillion years to brute force crack. What should it use instead of that?
Wrestleknownothing Posted March 27 Posted March 27 Just now, Caveira said: Show me some evidence of that The NSA distributed a special bulletin saying so. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2025-03-26/national-security-officials-were-warned-in-february-that-signal-was-vulnerable-to-attack Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/25/2025 at 2:31 PM, jross said: Signal’s comms encryption have never been busted. Evidence points to that it has. And that it isn't truly encrypted using any modern encryption tech.
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 1 minute ago, Caveira said: It uses aes-256 today which all of the computers in the world would take a bazillion years to brute force crack. What should it use instead of that? Child. You're over your head. Shut up and sit down, follow the posts. You'll learn something.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 5 minutes ago, RockLobster said: Evidence points to that it has. And that it isn't truly encrypted using any modern encryption tech. The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, RockLobster said: Child. You're over your head. Shut up and sit down, follow the posts. You'll learn something. Show me your math on how much computing power is needed to brute force aes-256 1
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 Just now, Caveira said: The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional. Again, STFU. Adults are posting here.
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/25/2025 at 10:16 PM, jross said: This may be the problem! https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability Suddenly, jross realizes he was incredibly wrong the entire time. And then posts as if he discovered something. Something that had existed for months.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 2 minutes ago, RockLobster said: Again, STFU. Adults are posting here. Was their encryption broken or did some guy show stuff to someone else? You seem extra angry today. Are you ok ?
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 Just now, Caveira said: Was their encryption broken or did some guy show stuff to someone else? You seem extra angry today. Are you ok ? You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear?
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 1 minute ago, RockLobster said: You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear? It’s ok. I’m cool.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, RockLobster said: You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear? You didn’t answer the encryption question. Was their encryption broken? I didn’t think it was.
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 (edited) I was very excited about this. As I was assembling a summary of my interpretation of what has happened with Signal in security terms. Halfway through, I realized that whatever I posted - however good or bad - was going to be met with the same kind of garbage I was stormed with in the last dozen or so posts. Likely joined by a dozen or so other posters who like to pile on like a bunch of jackals. My cooler, calmer head prevailed. Better for me to keep my personal interests separate from this place. Doesn't matter. In the end, the message is simple. US Military should use military secure channels, period. Anything else is high risk. Anyone who doesn't follow this should be sacked. Edited March 27 by RockLobster
Jason Bryant Posted March 27 Posted March 27 I was very excited about this. As I was assembling a summary of my interpretation of what has happened with Signal in security terms. Halfway through, I realized that whatever I posted - however good or bad - was going to be met with the same kind of garbage I was stormed with in the last dozen or so posts. Likely joined by a dozen or so other posters who like to pile on like a bunch of jackals. My cooler, calmer head prevailed. Better for me to keep my personal interests separate from this place. Doesn't matter. In the end, the message is simple. US Military should use military secure channels, period. Anything else is high risk. Anyone who doesn't follow this should be sacked.I was actually curious … Insert catchy tagline here.
Husker_Du Posted March 27 Posted March 27 same. Rock, why don't you just answer the question and/or provide citation? 1 TBD
jross Posted March 27 Posted March 27 7 hours ago, Caveira said: The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional. This is correct. Signal has not been hacked. The risk is social engineering / phishing and that risk applies to all apps. 1
Wrestleknownothing Posted March 27 Posted March 27 45 minutes ago, Husker_Du said: same. Rock, why don't you just answer the question and/or provide citation? I provided one. The NSA outlined a very specific vulnerability and restated that Signal was "NOT approved to process or store nonpublic classified information". And I guaran-damn-tee, if a reporter asked Hegseth before the attack what the weapons and timing were prior to the attack, he would have responded, "that is classified". Hegseth is just a moron lying about being a moron. If I was one of the pilots being put in harms way by that moron, I would be livid that all my sacrifices, and my life, were being put at risk by someone who claims OPSEC is in place while in the process of violating OPSEC. Worse than any DEI hire that was ever hired. Unless, of course, he was a DEI hire. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted March 27 Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, jross said: This is correct. Signal has not been hacked. The risk is social engineering / phishing and that risk applies to all apps. What makes you think someone who adds a reporter to a classified communication on an unsecured channel is not EXACTLY the kind of guy who is susceptible to social engineering? Listen to him nervously trying to explain how it could have happened and you will have no confidence he is not that kind of guy. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Heather Crull Northeastern, Indiana Class of 2025 Committed to McKendree (Women) Projected Weight: 110
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now