OMFG...
-
-
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Again, the _focus_ is on privacy. Privacy is not _achieved_, it is _focused on_. These are different.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @a4244aa43 @Lucrecious_ and
What I'm saying is not ridiculous at all. Not only were they clearly _not_ focused on security - because you would not store all conversations in the same SQLite if you were - but they also still aren't, because they had this bug and then didn't rearchitect.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @a4244aa43 and
If a team was "focused on security", it is obvious that you would use completely separate storage, both in memory and on disk, for every conversation. There is no other definition of "focused on security" in my book.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @a4244aa43 and
If you _didn't_ do that, then you're not "focused on security", you are "focused on ease of implementation". So just say that, and we're good.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @a4244aa43 and
I have known for some time that Signal's client - at least - is extremely insecure. You can tell this by how many bugs it has :) For the past three years, for example, every time it lists who is involved in a conversation, it substitutes one of the names with a random contact.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @a4244aa43 and
Whose client is secure? Some proprietary one? We can’t tell, because their source is closed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
At the moment, I would say that there is no such thing as a secure chat client. If there is one, I have not seen it. I think it's safe to assume that any time you use a chat client, your conversation may not be secure - either due to bugs or deliberate attacks.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.