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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:10 AM, 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. Expand From what I read it does
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/25/2025 at 7:17 PM, jross said: Signal itself is secure! Expand Signal, itself, is NOT secure. It has been proven to be insecure for months.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:13 AM, RockLobster said: Signal, itself, is NOT secure. It has been proven to be insecure for months. Expand Show me some evidence of that
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:13 AM, Caveira said: From what I read it does Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:14 AM, Caveira said: Show me some evidence of that Expand I'll do exactly that.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:15 AM, RockLobster said: You're reading from the wrong people in the wrong places. It does not use modern encryption. Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:14 AM, Caveira said: Show me some evidence of that Expand 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 7:31 PM, jross said: Signal’s comms encryption have never been busted. Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:17 AM, 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? Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:18 AM, RockLobster said: Evidence points to that it has. And that it isn't truly encrypted using any modern encryption tech. Expand The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:19 AM, RockLobster said: Child. You're over your head. Shut up and sit down, follow the posts. You'll learn something. Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:24 AM, Caveira said: The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional. Expand Again, STFU. Adults are posting here.
RockLobster Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 On 3/26/2025 at 3:16 AM, jross said: This may be the problem! https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:25 AM, RockLobster said: Again, STFU. Adults are posting here. Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:28 AM, Caveira said: Was their encryption broken or did some guy show stuff to someone else? You seem extra angry today. Are you ok ? Expand You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear?
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:29 AM, RockLobster said: You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear? Expand It’s ok. I’m cool.
Caveira Posted March 27 Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 4:29 AM, RockLobster said: You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear? Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 5:12 AM, RockLobster said: 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 On 3/27/2025 at 4:24 AM, Caveira said: The encryption they employ was not broken. Your delusional. Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 11:26 AM, Husker_Du said: same. Rock, why don't you just answer the question and/or provide citation? Expand 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 On 3/27/2025 at 12:20 PM, jross said: This is correct. Signal has not been hacked. The risk is social engineering / phishing and that risk applies to all apps. Expand 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
Samson McKissick Staley Pittsford, New York Class of 2026 Committed to Cornell Projected Weight: 141, 149
Luke Fugazzotto Northwestern Lehigh, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to George Mason Projected Weight: 184
Brendan Sholders Westfield, Virginia Class of 2025 Committed to Franklin & Marshall Projected Weight: 133
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