That isn’t what I’m saying.
If it was the baby of the USG, why would they let their own courts expose it?
And to be clear, I’m not against Signal, I just don’t think it is appropriate to proclaim without a doubt that they aren’t lying when you (and I) are not in the position to do so.
I’m not proclaiming anything. You have my disclaimer above.
In the order of your list:
The whole thing just feels like a giant honeypot or an accident waiting to happen.
They talk so much about their anonymous features and lack of ability for any one party to know anything about anybody when you view the front page od their website, its only when you dig through the threat level page that you see the true weaknesses. As stated in the Cwtch thread, that feels misleading to say the least.
Another big concern is how this software is focused mostly towards spyware laiden smartphones with the desktop option hidden at the bottom of their page. They also suggest tor as a fix to their inbuilt IP leaks, but even their own guide only tells you how to go about it on smartphones. I saw this app being talked about on the Dread tor forum with lots of people backing it, I also saw an article about how terrorists are moving over to Simplex.
Could it be that Simplex looks and sounds safe but is actually designed to lure criminals and legitimate targets into a trap?
A place where there is encryption, tor, mixed servers and all that yet still vulnerable? Ricochet chat used all those things but still got breached. So far I haven’t seen anything which makes me trust any of it.
SimpleX Messaging Protocol server
can:
- learn a recipient’s IP address, track them through other IP addresses they use to access the same queue, and infer information (e.g. employer) based on the IP addresses, as long as Tor is not used.
If a SimpleX server can do this, doesn’t it render the 2-hop message delivery system useless?
My concern about SimpleX is they don’t sign their releases, and they rely on build systems outside of SimpleX’s control to build releases (making release signing useless). Until the team resolves this in a satisfactory manner, I would avoid using SimpleX.
I’ve seen messages like that before, and I’ll just say this: would you trust a tank (yes, a tank, a war tank) to protect your physical safety? The answer to that question is probably a dozen questions instead of a clear and concise answer. I hope you understand the comparison.
What 2-hop system? This entire forum topic just has me convinced that nobody understands how SimpleX works 
Private message routing is a major milestone for SimpleX network evolution. It is a new message routing protocol that protects both users’ IP addresses and transport sessions from the messaging relays chosen by their contacts. Private message routing is, effectively, a 2-hop onion routing protocol inspired by Tor design
SimpleX blog: SimpleX network: private message routing, v5.8 released with IP address protection and chat themes
Nobody understands how SimpleX works
How about you tell us then?
I did actually forget they added private message routing. However, it was never intended to protect you from your own relay servers, which is probably why it wasn’t particularly memorable to me.
Prior to SimpleX 5.8 what was possible was that the recipient of your messages could read your IP directly, because your device would send the message directly to the relay server they controlled.
The 2-hop system in 5.8 just means that instead of your device directly connecting to a server the recipient controls, it now directly connects to a server you control before that.
In most cases the server you’re trusting here and the server the recipient is trusting is the same server operated by SimpleX themselves, so no information is hidden from them. They’ve never claimed to provide anonymity from the SimpleX network’s perspective, and the 2-hop system doesn’t change that.
They actually partnered with Flux so now you can have a two party relay system going. You do have to accept Flux’s terms of service before it’s enabled however.
Yes but my point is that it does not and was never intended to protect you from the server you choose to use, like Tor would.
It is not a feature which provides you with anonymity, it is a feature which hides your IP from the recipient of your message, which is information that SimpleX’s original design would have leaked.
When both SimpleX Chat and Flux servers are enabled, the app will use servers of both operators in each connection to receive messages and for private message routing, increasing metadata privacy for all users.
I’d say it’s clearly intended to protect either party from knowing both your IP address and the IP address of the recipient.
They actually partnered with Flux so now you can have a two party relay
And their ToS probably means they’ll screw you over straight away if compelled.
When talking to a stranger on Simplex you have to be anonymous or fully encrypted to all of these at the same time otherwise there is zero anonymity and that means zero safety: ISP, Simplex, Simplex server owner, Flux server owner and whoever you are talking to. Tor is lots of people and companies spread all over the globe, Simplex is in the UK (terrible country for security and privacy online), plus Simplex and Flux is 2 companies who’s servers are owned by ??? different users across ??? different countries. The lack of secure digital signature is an accident waiting to happen too.
Where is that shown in this screenshot…?
Also check Matrix I sent you my SimpleX contact lol
By default, if both Flux and SimpleX servers are enabled in this version, you will be using SimpleX Chat servers to receive messages, Flux servers to forward messages to SimpleX Chat servers, and the servers of both to forward messages to unknown servers. We will enable Flux to receive messages by default a bit later, or you can change it now via settings.
I guess this is true what you are saying, but it is non-default behavior.
I still definitely would not rely on this over Tor for anonymity. I am slightly concerned that people seem to think this can replace onion routing.
Maybe they shouldn’t have called it onion routing which confuses people. I’m still yet to be convinced as to why Simplex is the most secure, private and anonymous messenger out there right now. It could perhaps be improved by added tor into the software rather than depending upon orbot for mobile or some unknown bodge for desktop.
Personally I wouldn’t say/claim that it is all of those things. I am not really sure SimpleX would claim all of those things either. They don’t mention anonymity on their homepage, except that your identifier is anonymous, which is true… but is not the same as being anonymous.
I guess clearly I need to brush up on what SimpleX has been up to lately though.
When we added SimpleX to the website, it had a very straightforward design, and had a clear threat model. It was very usable in virtually all scenarios where an app like Signal might be usable, but it had the advantage of not requiring sensitive information like phone numbers.
Since then SimpleX has evidently added additional features, which may improve privacy, but they’re still optional and have clear drawbacks compared to actual anonymity networks like Tor.
Anyways, all I feel comfortable saying is that at minimum SimpleX is just as good as Signal in most scenarios. I can say that because it was true when we listed SimpleX, so it should still remain true after they’ve added these new features.
I wouldn’t rely on it in scenarios where you wouldn’t also trust Signal though, like for total anonymity. That being said, paired with Tor it should be better than Signal simply because you can use SimpleX over Tor without providing any identifiers like a phone number, which is a huge advantage.
…Does that answer your original question? Or are you not even convinced SimpleX is at Signal’s level?
Its quite sad that most of the time simplex is mentioned, it’s to bash about it not supporting a perfect something. Id argue that most people are not using it for life and death situation. Yet they ways come back on technical points, based on a theorical life and death issue. Then the requestor will let us know that its’ just for argument sake, cause there are not in that life of death argument.
I’m in for good faith argument with concrete details, and useful argumentation, but this thread is mostly question asked with a superior bragging position (just look at the title). I do like SimpleX, it a good software, and if you take the time to look at the announcement and explanation, its very interesting the new technologies they are developing. However I’m starting to think that community around the software is very bad, perhaps even with an agenda aganst simplex creator.
Opinion piece yes, hope to not get banned here.
For those interested,
Documentation for private routing
Section 2-hop
Also, I wasn’t really on with flux crypto bro joining simplex recently, but one of the thing they said in the phone interview that interested me was : by using decentralized infrastructure for server hosting, (right now not many server, but thousands in the future), it become much more difficult to censor and detect the network, than to censor a centralized system. At the end, you cant block amazon, gcp and aws ips, and decentralized network is any small operator offering service all around the world.
idk if these are covered here but some practical problems with app:
Nah, don’t think one can assume that. In fact, it is the reverse.
More features means more attack surface and attack vectors.[1]
Signal folks are (were?) very deliberate in design & impl when adding new features, or at least they were until moxie was at helm (though, jlund is no slouch either)! That isn’t to say Signal is infallible, but more code + more features is … more pwnage, not less, unless there’s concerted and deliberate effort to avoid it.
See also IPsec v OpenVPN v WireGuard ↩︎
