Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

For the longest time, Signal wouldn’t work without Google Play Services, but Moxie (the founder of Open Whisper Systems and maintainer of Signal) finally fixed this in 2017. There was also a long time when Signal was only available on the Google Play Store.

Why do I make a big deal out of Google Play and Google Play Services? Well, some people might trust Google, the company. But up against nation states, it’s no contest - Google has ties to the NSA, has been served secret subpoenas, and is literally the world’s largest machine designed for harvesting and analyzing private information about their users. Here’s what Google Play Services actually is: a rootkit. Google Play Services lets Google do silent background updates on apps on your phone and give them any permission they want. Having Google Play Services on your phone means your phone is not secure.

Moxie, why haven’t you put Signal on F-Droid yet?

Truly secure systems do not require you to trust the service provider. This is the point of end-to-end encryption. But we have to trust that Moxie is running the server software he says he is. We have to trust that he isn’t writing down a list of people we’ve talked to, when, and how often. We have to trust not only that Moxie is trustworthy, but given that Open Whisper Systems is based in San Francisco we have to trust that he hasn’t received a national security letter, too (by the way, Signal doesn’t have a warrant canary). Moxie can tell us he doesn’t store these things, but he could. Truly secure systems don’t require trust.



Moxie forbids you from distributing branded builds of the Signal app, and if you rebrand he forbids you from using the official Open Whisper servers. Because his servers don’t federate, that means that users of Signal forks cannot talk to Signal users. This is a truly genius move. No fork of Signal4 to date has ever gained any traction, and never will, because you can’t talk to any Signal users with them. In fact, there are no third-party applications which can interact with Signal users in any way. Moxie can write as many blog posts which appeal to wispy ideals and “moving ecosystems” as he wants5, but those are all really convenient excuses for an argument which allows him to design systems which serve his own interests


It's not like his motives are secret. He's been straightforward about his stance, however much I disagree with it.

https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...


> Moxie, why haven’t you put Signal on F-Droid yet?

There's no security benefit in having Signal on F-Droid instead of using https://signal.org/android/apk/.

I don't think Signal would say much if F-Droid distributed this APK directly (instead of a recompiled version with a different signature). It's just complicated to set up, which is why (I think) nobody has done it.

> But we have to trust that Moxie is running the server software he says he is.

I don't understand what you're suggesting instead. There's no practical solution to this problem.

> Signal doesn’t have a warrant canary

Warrant canaries are legally untested.

> Truly secure systems don’t require trust.

Can you give an example of a truly secure system? What's your threat model?


> There's no security benefit in having Signal on F-Droid instead of

I don't know about Signal specifically but there is absolutely security benefits to hosting apks on F-Droid instead of your own home page.

F-Droid supports reproducible builds, so you can actively check that their build infrastructure is not compromised.

Signal seems to support some kind of reproducible builds on their own. Why that has not been integrated into the F-Droid build process I don't know. It seems like a large enough application to warrant the work.

But I suspect no one has stepped up to do the work, and given that Moxie has been quite clear that Signal is not to be distributed on F-Droid, that seems not likely to change.


> Moxie has been quite clear that Signal is not to be distributed on F-Droid, that seems not likely to change.

IIRC his main arguments were really a different signature and delays in updates.

Since these reasons will not exist anymore in the case of reproducible builds (the Signal app could still prompt for updates itself) from Signal being distributed on F-Droid, I don't think we can assume that Signal would not be fine with the APK distributed on F-Droid.

From a quick glance, the main reason left now seems to be that Signal still relies on the Play services libraries at compile-time (not necessarily at runtime), which are proprietary and thus not acceptable for F-Droid. Signal does not want to support a fork with these libraries completely removed.


The benefit of running Signal on F-Droid is its secure update mechanism.

Do you really think a homebrewed self-update mechanism is superior to the battle tested F-Droid?

Moxie has a complete stranglehold on the Signal system. You are completely at his mercy for all decisions affecting the platform

See:

https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

The solution is federation, like email has always been.

There are a couple of ways to solve this problem, which can be used in tandem. We can stop Signal from knowing when we’re talking to each other by using peer-to-peer chats. This has some significant drawbacks, namely that both users have to be online at the same time for their messages to be delivered to each other. You can still fall back to peer-to-server-to-peer when one peer is offline, however. But this isn’t the most important of the two solutions.

The most important change is federation. Federated services are like email, in that Alice can send an email from gmail.com to Bob’s yahoo.com address. I should be able to stand up a Signal server, on my own hardware where I am in control of the logs, and communicate freely with other Signal servers, including Open Whisper’s servers. This distributes the security risks across hundreds of operators in many countries with various data extradition laws. This turns what would today be easy for the United States government to break and makes it much, much more difficult. Federation would also open the possibility for bridging the gap with several other open source secure chat platforms to all talk on the same federated network - which would spurn competition and be a great move for users of all chat platforms.

Moxie forbids you from distributing branded builds of the Signal app, and if you rebrand he forbids you from using the official Open Whisper servers. Because his servers don’t federate, that means that users of Signal forks cannot talk to Signal users. This is a truly genius move. No fork of Signal4 to date has ever gained any traction, and never will, because you can’t talk to any Signal users with them. In fact, there are no third-party applications which can interact with Signal users in any way. Moxie can write as many blog posts which appeal to wispy ideals and “moving ecosystems” as he wants5, but those are all really convenient excuses for an argument which allows him to design systems which serve his own interests


> Do you really think a homebrewed self-update mechanism is superior to the battle tested F-Droid?

I don't think it makes a practical difference.

> both users have to be online at the same time for their messages to be delivered to each other

Not only online but one has to be directly reachable, e.g. ping $IP works. With mobile connections it's rarely the case.

> on my own hardware where I am in control of the logs

That still means the users of your server trust you, you've just moved the problem. It only solves the problem for you as a user.

> This distributes the security risks across hundreds of operators in many countries with various data extradition laws.

I don't understand this argument: if a piece of (meta)data goes through one server and you think it's bad because this server can monitor this piece of data, then having multiple servers with various levels of accountability is arguably worse.

> those are all really convenient excuses for an argument which allows him to design systems which serve his own interests

You are still not discussing why his reasons are bad according to you, so it's hard for people that have found the blog post convincing to change their mind.

I'm also curious as to which interests you're referring to, especially when we're talking about a non-profit that develop FOSS software.


A federated system design can be made to tolerate temporarily unreachable nodes. See email.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: