Signal is aware of the blocks.

“Signal is being blocked in Venezuela and Russia. The app is a popular choice for encrypted messaging and people trying to avoid government censorship, and the blocks appear to be part of a crackdown on internal dissent in both countries…”

  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    50·
    3 个月前

    could matrix.org be as easily blocked, since it’s decentralized I’m wondering?

    At least it means that Signal is working as intended if they are blocking it, I guess that they don’t have back doors.

      • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
        27·
        3 个月前

        I can answer this! All matrix calls are over https APIs. Ports and addresses are stored in a text file on the base domain or in DNS txt entry.

        • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
          5·
          3 个月前

          Thanks, nice to have someone knowledgeable.

          Would you say matrix is censorship resistant? I’ve very limited knowledge of it but given what you said I imagine that if I was trying to block matrix I would just need to query the url of the text file and check the DNS text entry, if either exist just add the domain to the blocklist.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            21·
            3 个月前

            I was trying to block matrix I would just need to query the url of the text file

            Ok this raises a question for me. How do you find a url like this which wouldn’t be like, “linked on their site” or something? I know it must be possible to like dump a URL list for a site to a textfile, I’m just wondering how.

            Like say I want to find all the super secret pages on www.subgenius.com, they link some but say www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet.html wasn’t directly linked (it is, but pretend lol) but could be accessed by the URL, how would I find that URL? Can you just run like someprogram -a www.subgenius.com -o subgenius.txt because that would be cool.

            • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
              4·
              3 个月前

              Maybe I’ve misunderstood how it works. I thought that when connecting to a matrix instance you would point to the domain name and the text file would be on a standard location (as with /robots.txt or all the files in /.well-known/) so it would be easily discoverable. In fact I just checked and matrix does use /.well-known/ so one should be able to identify matrix servers by querying these URLs. Unless their is a way to use a non-standard location, but that would require further configuration on the client I guess.

              And just to answer your question, the only way to find some hidden file would be to brute force. This could obviously be extremely time consuming if the URL is long and random enough, especially if you add rate limiting (this last thing could be circumvented by using multiple IPs to scan, which would be easy for a state actor).

              Edit: I’ve just realized I wasn’t answering to the same person, the first part of the message was more for @[email protected]

              • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
                2·
                3 个月前

                Yeah the main thing is that the ports and addresses can change and it’s nbd. From a firewall perspective, it’s impossible to block them all. Especially when the clients are doing mundane https requests. Even if the server goes down or partial connectivity, the channel can still be used.

                • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
                  2·
                  3 个月前

                  But this seems easy to automatically block, no? If a client is querying an unknown domain check for some Matrix related data in /.well-known/ and add it to the block list if there is. And since the servers are publicly advertising the port used you just need to periodically check the list of known matrix domains you are creating in the first step.

                  Russia is already doing DPI and blocking ESNI so that seems easy. A more widespread usage of ECH would help everyone, as is Signal advocating, but that’s not the case yet.

    • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
      171·
      3 个月前

      Matrix is in fact decentralized but in reality it is not so much, I don’t know the number exactly but the majority of users use the matrix.org server

              • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
                5·
                3 个月前

                I mean, that’s not specific to Matrix. Telemetry is the tool used to get the numbers, so I don’t see how you would collect numbers on servers that don’t report numbers.

                • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  3 个月前

                  Im surprised there are zero calls to any official matrix server(s) from those instances.

                  Not even random API for metadata, update status, etc?

                  Telemtry is a word. It only means as much as it means in each context, and without full context it means little atm.

                  Do you have a resource where I could learn more about what data Matrix considers telemetry?

      • wurstgulasch3000@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 个月前

        People who live in countries where DNS and IP blocks are common probably use a different server. I’ve been running my own for over a year and it works like a dream

      • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
        123·
        3 个月前

        It cannot be easily blocked especially if you use your own homeserver every homeserver replicates the channel and it can operate without the original server! That’s why signal and telegram are inherently flawed.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      31·
      3 个月前

      To be devils advocate in a sense, this may mean that it doesn’t have any backdoors that Russia or Venezuela can use, but the NSA or something still could have one of their own.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        12·
        3 个月前

        Matrix doesn’t have encryption as the default

        Also Signal doesn’t have any backdoors. I can say that with high certainty as it has been audited more than any other messager.

        • TarantulaFudge@startrek.website
          4·
          3 个月前

          It doesn’t matter if it is a business entity operating under a government then you can never really know because gag orders. Centralized servers can be blocked. Telegram and Signal apps could have a back door. This is why open stack is important. And not just the code. Also encryption is default for p2p one on one conversations. It’s not in channels by default because it can complicate public use.

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      241·
      3 个月前

      Yes, but you’ll have to install them from sources other than what governments deem official. Like F-droid.

      Now, if they block p2p traffic that’s a different story

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      111·
      3 个月前

      It depends. Somehow it has to discover the peers. Other than that, they could block traffic between residential IP addresses and there goes large part of the P2P network

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        10·
        3 个月前

        Russia and Venezuela are huge hotbeds of piracy from populations without access or capital to access most forms of entertainment.

        Breaking P2P in this manner would basically be getting rid of the circus part of bread and circuses. Not a good move for an authoritarian.

    • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      42·
      3 个月前

      Peer to peer apps do not work without a centralized relay to get you around the CG-Nat that cellphones live behind. So they’re not really peer to peer. You would be playing whack-a-mole with the relays, having to spin them up as they get blocked. Many ISPs implement CG-NAT as well. Its really dependent on how the network providers structure things. Someone from the country with local knowledge would have to test it.

      • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
        6·
        3 个月前

        IPv6 doesn’t need CGNAT. So as long as it’s capable of doing IPv6, it can directly communicate peer to peer using globally unique addresses. How do I know this? Simple because my ISP on IPv4 is completely CGNAT and I cannot get anything past it. So I am completely forced to use IPv6 for any service I want to run and access from outside my network.

        • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          32·
          3 个月前

          Sure, but ipv6 is not widely adopted. I’m behind a CG-NAT but can’t get an ipv6 so I have to operate a vps bridge to host my services. Some cell networks have ipv6 support but a few implement a NAT for it as well. AT&T only allows port 80 and 443.

          Its not consistent enough to be useful without a centralized relay.

          • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
            1·
            3 个月前

            I think that really depends on where you are. Here in the US, for example, IPv6 is pretty darn well adopted. And even 45% of Google’s internet traffic is done over IPv6.

            • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              3·
              3 个月前

              Sure but if your looking to use a chat service, 45% is not a high enough watermark to have reliability. Its so contingent on the network operator to allow for an IPV6 connection. And like I said, places like AT&T have a NAT on their IPV6 network.

              • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
                1·
                3 个月前

                True, the only other option is something like simplex through tor. There are also p2p options like meshtastic as well.

      • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
        1·
        3 个月前

        IPv6 doesn’t need CGnet. So as long as it’s capable of doing IPv6, it can directly communicate peer to peer using globally unique addresses. How do I know this? Simple because my ISP on IPv4 is completely CG NAT and I cannot get anything past it. So I am completely forced to use IPv6 for any service I want to run and access from outside my network.

  • D61 [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    4418·
    3 个月前

    blocks appear to be part of a crackdown on internal dissent in both countries.

    Or… you know… at least for Venezuela, the USA constantly fucking around with their elections and politics and local assets using Signal or something. Maybe, I dunno?

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      3111·
      3 个月前

      Yeah. Telegram, should be next, there’s a huge risk with it too. And email! Social networks too, just in case. And postal mail, we can’t forget that. We should crack down any form of uncensored communication.

      All for the benefit of the people, of course. \s

      • Novman@feddit.it
        181·
        3 个月前

        In UK don’t ban them, but jail you if they don’t like your posts, more democratic.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
          12·
          3 个月前

          While I don’t live in the UK I do believe they have protections on free speech.

          If you are concerned you can always hide your identity.

          • Novman@feddit.it
            7·
            3 个月前

            I’m not living in uk, i live in italy. I saw every kind of comment written on italian social networks and i have never seen a conviction. When the police had taken the names of protesters, ( not arrested ) we had a public outcry. We had arrest for direct call for violence, not simply rants. So seeing people jailed for rants on twitter scares me. We have actual fascists and communists, both parties were strong, and we had an actual civil war. We have strong linguistic minorities and regional parties. So a lot of people hating each other. Who decide the right speech in such a situation?

              • Novman@feddit.it
                1·
                3 个月前

                And normaly it is very difficult to be comdemned for a generic rant. It is easier in case of insults or defamtion, but it is mostly an high fee. Jailing a political adversary for a speech ( when we had a lot of political/mafia killing in the past ) is a big no. We had actual people killed for their speech.

            • ivn@jlai.lu
              1·
              3 个月前

              Are people really jailed for rants in the UK? I’ve only seen stories of actual call to violence.

              • Novman@feddit.it
                1·
                3 个月前

                The line between rants and call for violence is quite blurred in some cases IMHO

                • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
                  1·
                  3 个月前

                  Can you give an exemple of such case in the recent events in the UK?

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          45·
          3 个月前

          I’m not aware of the kingdom of whataboutistan. Is it related to this post somehow?

          • Novman@feddit.it
            91·
            3 个月前

            Yes, different kind of censorship in the world. A more broad vision.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              34·
              3 个月前

              Keep going, then. Any other country to mention, seeing how it’s important to you? Russia? China? Italy? India? Pakistan?

              I somehow feel your “broad” is actually quite narrow. Usually happens with the whatabautisms

              • Novman@feddit.it
                132·
                3 个月前

                Why going so long when we have a near, english-speaking , clean example of a country famous for the free speech. If you have the highest example of human rights why check the rest.

                • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
                  25·
                  3 个月前

                  So much from broadening… As soon as I mention any other suddenly there’s no point checking other countries.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          161·
          3 个月前

          The current president of Signal is also still happy to do interviews with US-defense-oriented think tanks like Lawfare.

          They probably still are funded by USIntel, considering how interested RFA was in pushing Signal in privacy-oriented spaces.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          31·
          3 个月前

          Unrelated to what the previous person is saying (banned because it was used by dissidents), but still, we have the source code. If you’re arguing they are somehow accessing the data, what’s encrypted and what isn’t is known.

          • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            103·
            3 个月前

            Signal knows who you are taking to. You can build a network of contacts based on that information. When you send messages your phone number is protected but your ip address is not, and the receivers phone number is not protected. So you can find two people chatting based on that information. The app automatically sends a delivery receipt when a message is received to the other user, exposing the senders phone number and IP address.

            However, opposition in the country is backed by western agencies and NGOs, and likely their primary means of communication is signal since it’s backed by western intelligence, meaning, western actors believe it to be safe from external interference.

            I’m not arguing that the west is reading messages. I’m arguing that they believe it’s a safe haven for their agents because they pay money to ensure it’s safe for their agents. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t use it. Its the same reason why the intelligence community in the west is a large supporter of the tor network. They use it in the field and operate their own exit nodes to protect their operations.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              63·
              3 个月前

              That’s what you fail to understand. It’s open source, it has been audited. Venezuela and any other country can check and crack the encryption if has holes in it. The long first paragraph is something that’s not a secret, but widely known.

              You know what’s also safe? Encrypted emails. VPNs. Matrix.

              If you think this is a movement against foreign agents, you should think it’s useless too. For a sufficiently motivated agent, this will be trivial to overcome. For the general population? Not so much.

              Unless next all forms of private communication re forbidden, of curse. Surely what people on a privacy community advocate for.

                • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
                  31·
                  3 个月前

                  Which ones? Signal? Likely. Secure mail and VPN? For sure. Can “foreign agents” use them? Certainly.

                  Who will have a hard time to use them? General population. Signal is the privacy communication service with the lowest barrier to entry, in terms of cost and setup complexity. Not a tool for spies, but for average Joe.

                  What service do you recommend BTW? That ensures government cannot snoop and prevents “foreign agents”. It seems that any privacy is a risk, so I’m curious what a privacy minded person thinks should be OK.

      • D61 [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        62·
        3 个月前

        Self defense is self defense, would we expect some different behavior from a country being attacked from outside interests with publicly accessible end to end encryption services?

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          43·
          3 个月前

          Publicly accessible: reviewed and audited by hundreds of teams that confirmed there’s no backdoor. Venezuelan, Russian and Chinese governments didn’t find the holes, even having access to the code. If they did, they would be exploiting it to… reeducate.

          Yeah, I would expect to trust that. Still, you said yourself, the problem is that is used by dissidents. And we can’t have that, right?

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        31·
        3 个月前

        We can’t have individual thinkers running around can we. We need a shared vision that is dictated from the top down.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          33·
          3 个月前

          For their own good. Individual thinkers tend to have short lives. Just look how many people thinked themselves of a window in Russia on the last year.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      47·
      3 个月前

      I’m pretty sure Venezuela was unstable before the US started getting involved.

      Anyway Signal is secure so that shouldn’t be the problem. It has more to do with the government working to crush civil liberties and independent thought.

      Same story in all authoritarian countries

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      233·
      3 个月前

      WhatsApp supposedly uses Signal protocol.

      Why is THAT not blocked? Certainly they wouldnt roll their own encryption and bypass Signal security protocols after having Moxie come in, right? Right???

    • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
      15·
      3 个月前

      Telegram is not secure, I guess if you can listen to it better not block it.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
      101·
      3 个月前

      I mean it was blocked before Signal was blocked. Russia somewhat famously badly broke their Internet trying to shutdown telegram… and eventually gave up.

      I’m guessing Signal finally has enough market share to get the Russian government’s attention but not enough market share that they think the web of proxies that kept Telegram online will keep Signal online.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 个月前

      On April 16, 2018, the Russian government began blocking access to Telegram, an instant messaging service. The blocking led to interruptions in the operation of many third-party services, but practically did not affect the availability of Telegram in Russia. It was officially unblocked on June 19, 2020

      Some say it was unblocked because they made a deal with Durov. Another opinion is that too many people and services including officials continued to rely on it even during the time it was blocked. Regardless, Telegram did a huge job on circumventing those blocks.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 个月前

      You need a certain market saturation before a ban becomes useful. If very few people are using the service, there’s little incentive to invest time/energy in a block.

      I suspect the recent wave of riots in the wake of the election is driving the urgency.

  • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
    153·
    3 个月前

    Why countries that do not prosecute political dissent bock apps used by political dissenters? /s

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      161·
      3 个月前

      Matrix isn’t secure depending on how you use it. It also doesn’t protect individual identities terribly well.

      Simplex Chat would be the better option however the main Simplex Chat server and matrix server could end up blocked as well.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        231·
        3 个月前

        Matrix is entirely self-hostable, and you can turn off both federation, and the requirements for any linkable identifiers.

        Signal by contrast requires your phone number, isn’t self-hostable, and is based in a five-eyes country.

        • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
          10·
          3 个月前

          Matrix doesn’t protect metadata, which is arguably just as (if not more) important than message data. Signal by contrast does protect metadata and proper implements Perfect Forward Secrecy for all chats. I do think Signal’s centralized design and phone number requirements problematic, but Signal still has many merits. Such as its massive user base for a AGPL-only project.

            • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
              1·
              3 个月前
              • AGPL-only is a license, I didn’t want to misrepresent the license by being general. I was just trying to say that it is surprising that a fully open source application like signal has a large user base.
              • PFS isnt enabled by default for group chats and generally feels messy as the end user to deal with. I was unaware that they have properly implemented it for group chats as well.
              • My point about metadata still stands. Matrix still does not protect metadata (one eg: reactions to messages are in unencrypted).
              • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
                3·
                3 个月前

                PFS isnt enabled by default for group chats and generally feels messy as the end user to deal with. I was unaware that they have properly implemented it for group chats as well.

                Isn’t it? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, so let’s start from the definition. PFS is when future joined users can’t read messages sent before they have joined, right?
                In that case, it is not just implemented, but cannot be avoided and is a major hassle to deal with. In my understanding when someone joins, all members start a new olm session, meaning they now encrypt future messages with a new key. The old keys are not being sent to the joined users, not even if the room has been set up to allow reading history, and this results in them only seeing undecryptable messages, and all the metadata you’re taking about (except when the client hides these to reduce new user’s confusion).

                Former keys are not shared among clients for now because there’s no mechanism (for now, but this is planned) to verify that a new member is actually a legit member, not just someone popped in by the server admin by DB editing or whatever.
                Earlier there was a workaround mechanism, where with element clients, when you have invited someone, your client has sent keys to all the previous messages which it had, to the invited user. That was not (yet?) reimplemented in their new crypto library, but apparently they’re working on it.

                But the point is, that afaik PFS is on and cannot be disabled for encrypted rooms, new rooms are encrypted by default, you have to toggle that off by yourself if you don’t want it, and it can’t be toggled off after room creation.

                My point about metadata still stands. Matrix still does not protect metadata (one eg: reactions to messages are in unencrypted).

                That’s right. I don’t think that’ll ever change, but it’s for sure that it’ll not change for a long time, because fundamental changes would be needed.
                But! For when that is a concern, you are not entirely unprotected. For example you can set up a room to never federate, or only federate with specific homeservers. If your group runs their own, on owned real hardware, information can’t really leak from your control.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            3·
            3 个月前

            for a AGPL-only project.

            Citation needed. It is undisputed that the software that runs on their servers is not identical to the code they release; if they release at all because sometimes they just stop for a year, until people complain 🫠

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            9·
            3 个月前

            This is false. You still need a phone number to sign up and it is used as an internal identifier.

            All they did is to allow you to hide your phone number from other users.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    3628·
    3 个月前

    Smart move, considering Signal is a US-hosted centralized service that has to comply with US NSL laws.

    These comments below seem to be unaware of all the issues privacy advocates have of signal.

    • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
      221·
      3 个月前

      I don’t get it, are you really arguing that Russia and Venezuela are blocking Signal to protect their citizens from American snooping?

        • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          3 个月前

          Isn’t the whole point of something like End-to-End Encryption so that not even the company themselves can read your messages?

          In that case it wouldn’t matter even if they did turn the info over.

          Edit: I read more into the page you linked. Looks like those NSLs can’t even be used to request the contents either way:

          Can the FBI obtain content—like e-mails or the content of phone calls—with an NSL?

          Not legally. While each type of NSL allows the FBI to obtain a different type of information, that information is limited to records—such as “subscriber information and toll billing records information” from telephone companies.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
          102·
          3 个月前

          Mass censorship is never good for civil liberties. Let people decide on there own.

          Also Signal is cryptographically sound. Many other messagers use a similar protocol

          • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
            35·
            3 个月前

            As I commented below, US security forces aren’t that interested in message content anyway, since they don’t have time to parse through every message to construct meaning. Signal does require your phone number tho, as well as message timestamps, meaning they can build social graphs of real people. Tons of metadata living on a single US-based server.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
              71·
              3 个月前

              It doesn’t matter if it is US based. You shouldn’t trust the server.

              Signal has known issues. That doesn’t mean it is entirely bad though. Saying things like Signal is insecure is simply untrue. It has weaknesses but it also has the benefit of protecting your messages completely and being well established.

        • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
          4·
          3 个月前

          My question was more about the motives in this case.

            • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
              6·
              3 个月前

              The question of what should be done can be interesting, but that was not my question. It’s obvious this is not the motive here.

              If you are in your own country opposition it’s better to use a foreign tool, even better if it’s in a country that’s not gonna collaborate with yours.

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                3·
                3 个月前

                I imagine just using metadata you can look for people who are discontent, then provides list of those people to the opposition to contact and mobilize them and get them to protest.

                Or target them with stories and bots to turn them into a revolutionary force, but that would be more useful for social media networks instead of signal.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      3 个月前

      Signal has strong cryptographic protocols that are not easily broken. It pioneered the use of double ratchet encryption. (Different keys for each message)

      It does expose phone numbers to Signal and the US government but that may or may no be a concern depending on what your threat model is.

    • marcie (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      85·
      3 个月前

      they hated him because he spoke the truth smh

      use matrix, briar, simplex in that order

      also what email platforms + vpns do you recommend, out of curiosity?

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        3 个月前

        Matrix isn’t as good as Simplex Chat. Briar is good as it is very hard to censor but it does use battery and requires you to be only all the time. (unless you count Briar mailbox)

        • marcie (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          22·
          3 个月前

          sure, simplex is very private, but its also a pain in the ass to use currently. i feel like matrix makes a decent tradeoff between easy use and privacy