• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Exactly, which is why your drives should be encrypted.

    Once you lose physical control of a device, all bets are off, drive encryption at least slows down attackers significantly.

    I have far more sensitive, and a greater volume of data, on the drive than just comms.

    • @Sethayy
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Drive encryption wouldn’t do anything to mitigate this though? A process running on your PC needs access to your drive, and so with the current setup you have either the option to trust 100% every software with your signal encryption keys, or to simply not use them.

      Seems like a pretty big security flaw that we have actual solutions to.

      You could maybe form a hackey way to allow only the signal process to an encrypted FUSE filesystem that decrypts its own keys on the fly, but again there’s already ways to do this in software that isn’t like using a wrench to plug a leak. (and this setup would just have it’s own set of keys that need to be protected now, probably by a traditional method like kwallet)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        I mean… Every serious operating system already has some form of keyring feature right?

        • @Sethayy
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          Ie. what signal should be using, yet isnt

      • @sun_is_ra
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        there is SELinux which give more fine tuned permissions for each app but it was too complicated for me

        • @Sethayy
          link
          English
          22 months ago

          And if you’re using SELinux as a kwallet/keyring replacement, you’re using it wrong (but again security in layers doesn’t stop you from using both)