Signal also checked with US government sources about the alleged flaw, which cropped up over the weekend, but says those 'we spoke to have no info suggesting this is a valid claim.'
Many phones with Google Messenging apps reply to SMS with RCS by default, which Signal can’t support because it’s proprietary.
So Signal users didn’t receive replies to SMS they sent.
Using Signal for SMS also gave users a false sense of security, thinking SMS sent from the app would be encrypted, despite an in-app warning.
Finally, users kept blaming Signal for bugs in their provider’s faulty SMS implementation and gave the app bad reviews for something the devs have no control over.
It’s not about being a hassle to maintain, it’s about users thinking they were sending secure messages when they weren’t. The simplest explanation is that Signal is a secure messenger, so the app shouldn’t let you send insecure messages. I’m sure it lost them a few users but they’re not trying to gain maximum market share like for-profit orgs try to.
Also, in Google’s attempt to push RCS, they’re narrowing what application are allowed to use the SMS lib. They already partnered with Samsung so Samsung would removed RCS support and ostensibly deprecated their own Messages app for Google’s.
Google’s long-game is to only have one SMS app on Android, their own, much like the way they’re closing off the rest of the Android ecosystem slowly from every other vector.
Trying to support SMS on Signal long-term would just be an exercise in futility.
It wouldn’t have been complicated to add a warning for SMS messages.
The simplest explanation is that Signal is a secure messenger, so the app shouldn’t let you send insecure messages.
Well that’s the reason I think it will become an app dedicated to a few elitist users. If an app lets me do unsecure things after numerous warnings and popups it should be fine.
That’s how you make thing secure. You convince people afraid of security/complexity to use Signal and hope one day there is more than 1% of their contacts that could handle secure messaging.
a few users but they’re not trying to gain maximum market share
Are you saying they don’t want their messaging app to be popular?
If your purpose is to secure as many people communication then this will never work by targeting only the most technical users…
sms Integration was the reason i wasn’t using it for a long time and then always made sure this was turned off because it was soo confusing for me and everyone i tried to get to signal
it was actively prompting to enable the feature during or shortly after setup which could be easily confused for being part of the process and most people i know didn’t actively read it, activated it and then where wondering why they get messages from X (sms) suddenly in signal, or assuming people are on signal, because it suggested regular contacts as well (which would be unencrypted sms)
Meh too bad Signal shot itself in the foot by removing SMS support.
I still think it was a very bad decision that will lead to the use of the app to decrease over time.
At least it definitely decreased my use of it.
I understand it’s a hassle to maintain this feature but still was probably worth it for user acceptance and spread to less technical users.
Many phones with Google Messenging apps reply to SMS with RCS by default, which Signal can’t support because it’s proprietary.
So Signal users didn’t receive replies to SMS they sent.
Using Signal for SMS also gave users a false sense of security, thinking SMS sent from the app would be encrypted, despite an in-app warning.
Finally, users kept blaming Signal for bugs in their provider’s faulty SMS implementation and gave the app bad reviews for something the devs have no control over.
As far as I know, the protocol itself is open, but there’s no open-source reference implementation. Is this what you mean by “proprietary”?
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RCC.07-v10.0.pdf
It’s not about being a hassle to maintain, it’s about users thinking they were sending secure messages when they weren’t. The simplest explanation is that Signal is a secure messenger, so the app shouldn’t let you send insecure messages. I’m sure it lost them a few users but they’re not trying to gain maximum market share like for-profit orgs try to.
Also, in Google’s attempt to push RCS, they’re narrowing what application are allowed to use the SMS lib. They already partnered with Samsung so Samsung would removed RCS support and ostensibly deprecated their own Messages app for Google’s.
Google’s long-game is to only have one SMS app on Android, their own, much like the way they’re closing off the rest of the Android ecosystem slowly from every other vector.
Trying to support SMS on Signal long-term would just be an exercise in futility.
It wouldn’t have been complicated to add a warning for SMS messages.
Well that’s the reason I think it will become an app dedicated to a few elitist users. If an app lets me do unsecure things after numerous warnings and popups it should be fine.
That’s how you make thing secure. You convince people afraid of security/complexity to use Signal and hope one day there is more than 1% of their contacts that could handle secure messaging.
Are you saying they don’t want their messaging app to be popular?
If your purpose is to secure as many people communication then this will never work by targeting only the most technical users…
sms Integration was the reason i wasn’t using it for a long time and then always made sure this was turned off because it was soo confusing for me and everyone i tried to get to signal
It was off by default. Hardly “confusing.”
it was actively prompting to enable the feature during or shortly after setup which could be easily confused for being part of the process and most people i know didn’t actively read it, activated it and then where wondering why they get messages from X (sms) suddenly in signal, or assuming people are on signal, because it suggested regular contacts as well (which would be unencrypted sms)