Technology

59381 readers

2543 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why doesn't Signal forbid third party clients or at least offer a client certification program to ensure security? (feddit.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Signal forks can have unexpected behaviours like retaining deleted messages and also they don't get updated at the same rate that Signal get updated.
Every couple of years I hear a story about hackers disturbing signal with backdoors, which would be impossible or very hard to be done If they blocked third party clients. (Ex: 1)
The amount of people who use third party Signal clients are very few anyway.

I saw what WhatsApp did to forbid modification of it's app which works in stopping a lot of distributions, why doesn't Signal do the same?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean having a list of allowed clients.

As I said in my post, WhatsApp already enforce forbidding third party client and it seems to work well.

I don't see why wouldn't Signal improve the security of their users by implementing this, while upsetting the very few users who use third party clients.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

How do you imagine this working?