Good E2EE messengers besides Signal?

DeletedUser499

Linux Is Threema doing something better enough to justify the additional effort to convince people to pay for it?
I have no problem paying for myself, but the problem would be convincing others

convincing others is the biggest problem with any messenger, apart from WA.
I use Threema and to get people to use it, I bought 10 licences. Once in, people tend to agree Threema is a polished messenger, doing most things WA, Signal and Molly do and easy to use immediately.

wuseman

DeletedUser499 I use Threema and to get people to use it, I bought 10 licences.

You're a hero and I say that unironically.

xxx

Linux Is Threema doing something better enough to justify the additional effort to convince people to pay for it?

you can use it without a phone number
you can use threema's own push server, pull or FCM.
I used it for years and it worked very reliable

All in all Threema is well worth the money I think.

Linux

xxx you can use it without a phone number
you can use threema's own push server, pull or FCM.
I used it for years and it worked very reliable

All in all Threema is well worth the money I think.

Sounds nice, but unfortunately its doesn't support a independent desktop version

JollyRancher SimpleX is the best if you want multiple segregated profiles/ids that aren't tied to anything. Its downside is that you have to share the contact with each individual. You can create a public contact link and post it somewhere for people to find but it is nowhere near as seamless as Signal.

What happens to my SimpleX contacts if my or their server goes down? Can the contacts be auto migrated to new servers?
.

DeletedUser499

mmmm
Briar fulfilled two of the three options the OP was looking for. It was a fair shout.
Yes not many people use it, that's its strength, it may well get overlooked when it counts to be overlooked, etc...

JollyRancher

Signal is the recommended default for a reason. If you want an easy to use, secure, full featured, messenger app that you don't mind tying to your real identity (phone number) then it is hands down the best choice.

SimpleX is the best if you want multiple segregated profiles/ids that aren't tied to anything. Its downside is that you have to share the contact with each individual. You can create a public contact link and post it somewhere for people to find but it is nowhere near as seamless as Signal.

WhatsApp is worse Signal in basically every security & privacy respect but it does have the advantage of massive global adoption, especially in Europe, South America, and Africa.

02673853

paprikatongue The real challenge is finding a signal alternative that other people will use, haha. I use Molly, it's a nice signal fork but you do need a phone number. Simplex and session are phone number free alternatives. Also use Jabber/XMPP. There's a helpful tutorial on the dark net bible for setting up XMPP with OMEMO encryption.

You gotta meet people where they're at. So unfortunately, that means having a lot of different communication channels sometimes, not just one perfect alternative

I don't see any difference between different messengers in terms of onboarding people.
Maybe SimpleX is a littly bit easier because they don't need to create an account.

Eirikr70

The best one for me is the one I can host and is E2EE. I have no second choice.

Eumenia

Eirikr70 The best one for me is the one I can host and is E2EE. I have no second choice.

Isn't almost any of this messengers self hostable?

IcyScroll

Linux What happens to an existing contact/connection if the smp server we have made our connection over goes offline?

What is your concern? Is it longevity of message queues or handling of short-term disruptions that may sometimes affect servers used to send/receive messages?
The former doesn't seem to be an issue*. The latter will force you to wait until necessary server is up and running again. This happens rarely (my experience, YMMV) and will be mitigated once redundancy + automatic rotation of queues are in place (planned for next year). A workaround right now might be to create 2 chats with the same contact and ensure that both connections use different servers - can rotate them as needed. I would only do this for connections that require absolute availability 24/7. I'm not sure I would be using current SimpleX for scenarios where availability is this critical, though.

*Quoting Evgeny's message on SimpleX users group from yesterday:

An ex-colleague messaged me today.

We connected in March 2022, on the day of the first release of mobile app – only text messages, no groups, no replies, nothing, and never talked since.

The chat still works. I am shocked.

It was not expected for such an old connection to work after so many protocol updates and not a single message exchange. Developers only aim to maintain backwards compatibility for 1 year. My takeaway from this is that its fair to call SimpleX a reliable way to keep in touch with everyone :)

Linux ould it be possible in the future to create server independent long term SimpleX links?

I'm not sure what you're asking about. SimpleX is a decentralized communication network, meaning it can be used with any server operator. A SimpleX link contains data that allows others to contact you. This data can be used via any server, as far as I know.

I'm not a dev, I might be wrong about some details.
I recommend joining SimpleX users group so that your questions can be answered by far more knowledgeable people:
SimpleX group link (via smp4.simplex.im)

Edit: in my response I assumed that default (preset) servers are used. Things might get messy if you set up a custom server and later its owner decides to shut it down.

Linux

IcyScroll I'm not sure what you're asking about. SimpleX is a decentralized communication network, meaning it can be used with any server operator. A SimpleX link contains data that allows others to contact you. This data can be used via any server, as far as I know.

Every SimpleX link starts with server metadata like smp4.simplex, if I change the number, the link doesn't work anymore, so I assume that the link is tied to the server.

IcyScroll What is your concern? Is it longevity of message queues or handling of short-term disruptions that may sometimes affect servers used to send/receive messages?
The former doesn't seem to be an issue*. The latter will force you to wait until necessary server is up and running again. This happens rarely (my experience, YMMV) and will be mitigated once redundancy + automatic rotation of queues are in place (planned for next year). A workaround right now might be to create 2 chats with the same contact and ensure that both connections use different servers - can rotate them as needed. I would only do this for connections that require absolute availability 24/7. I'm not sure I would be using current SimpleX for scenarios where availability is this critical, though.

*Quoting Evgeny's message on SimpleX users group from yesterday:

An ex-colleague messaged me today.

We connected in March 2022, on the day of the first release of mobile app – only text messages, no groups, no replies, nothing, and never talked since.

The chat still works. I am shocked.

It was not expected for such an old connection to work after so many protocol updates and not a single message exchange. Developers only aim to maintain backwards compatibility for 1 year. My takeaway from this is that its fair to call SimpleX a reliable way to keep in touch with everyone :)

IcyScroll Edit: in my response I assumed that default (preset) servers are used. Things might get messy if you set up a custom server and later its owner decides to shut it down.

This is what I mean, but it could also happen to the offficial servers.
I am concerned that if I have contacts where my only connection to them is over SimpleX and then the server shuts down, we have a hard time find each other again.

I would like connections to be server independent, so that they can re route if a server permanently shuts down.
Like this: https://onnostr.substack.com/p/understanding-nostr-relays-the-backbone

IcyScroll

Linux Every SimpleX link starts with server metadata like smp4.simplex, if I change the number, the link doesn't work anymore, so I assume that the link is tied to the server.

That would be a server over which connection request is sent.

Example:
smp4.simplex.im is in:

SimpleX address: a different server for receiving messages is picked upon accepting connection.
1-time link: this feature picks a random server for which user has enabled receiving messages. Here the smp4.simplex.im server is actually used to receive messages.

In both cases it is possible to change this server later, however the server has to be online and perhaps your contact too, but I'm not sure.

Linux This is what I mean, but it could also happen to the offficial servers.

While there is a chance an official server would be permanently shut down without some kind of migration for queues handled by it, I don't believe it's a realistic risk. Nonetheless, it's always good to be prepared.

I am concerned that if I have contacts where my only connection to them is over SimpleX and then the server shuts down, we have a hard time find each other again.

This is problematic for those who do not create (per-profile) SimpleX address and rather depend on sharing 1-time links. In any case, there is a toggle you can use that automatically shares your SimpleX address with all of your contacts.
SimpleX address > address settings > share with contacts
This will make you reachable via a new connection, using a different server. The QR code will stay regardless if messages go through.

Again, things should get easier once redundancy + automatic rotation launches, hopefully next year :)

Linux

IcyScroll That would be a server over which connection request is sent.

Example:
smp4.simplex.im is in:
SimpleX address: a different server for receiving messages is picked upon accepting connection.

1-time link: this feature picks a random server for which user has enabled receiving messages. Here the smp4.simplex.im server is actually used to receive messages.

In both cases it is possible to change this server later, however the server has to be online and perhaps your contact too, but I'm not sure.

Changing the server while the server is online doesn't remove the server dependency to protect availability.

IcyScroll While there is a chance an official server would be permanently shut down without some kind of migration for queues handled by it, I don't believe it's a realistic risk. Nonetheless, it's always good to be prepared.

Its unlikely, but I would like some redundancy considering this.
At the moment I would always need to establish important conenctions over something that isn't SImpleX to create redunancy and I am not sure which service to chose for this that can compete with SimpleX in terms of privacy and security , maybe Session?

IcyScroll Again, things should get easier once redundancy + automatic rotation launches, hopefully next year :)

Would this ensure availability independent of specific servers?

cb474

If you're using Simplex on both your phone and the desktop, can you access the same thread with another party from either app (they way you can with Signal)? Or will the desktop app and the phone app appear as separate people in the same chat?

IcyScroll

cb474 If you're using Simplex on both your phone and the desktop, can you access the same thread with another party from either app (they way you can with Signal)? Or will the desktop app and the phone app appear as separate people in the same chat?

Right now SimpleX Chat does not support multi-device chat synchronization. The way all messengers currently implement multi-device support is bad, this includes Signal. I suggest reading this research paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/626.pdf

Signal doesn't improve in this area, because it considers the threat to be outside of its threat model. SimpleX wants to provide an implementation that protects its users from issues described in the research. This is going to take time.

Currently, it's possible to use SimpleX database from a mobile device via a desktop, but only if both devices are connected to the same local network.
I believe most people using SimpleX network at this time have separate databases for their devices devices. E.g. Bob (laptop) and Bob (phone). This might actually slightly protect against the availability concern @Linux wrote about.

IcyScroll

Linux Changing the server while the server is online doesn't remove the server dependency to protect availability.

Correct. Right now its possible to mitigate this concern by sharing per-profile address with your contacts. This link will likely depend on a different server than the one used for receiving messages. This is not foolproof as your contact would have to manually use your address after noticing the failure. There's also a possibility that you would change the address after a server used by your contact (to receive messages from you) had been shut down, rendering them unable to contact you, as the last address that was shared with them would be obsolete.

Linux Its unlikely, but I would like some redundancy considering this.
At the moment I would always need to establish important conenctions over something that isn't SImpleX to create redunancy and I am not sure which service to chose for this that can compete with SimpleX in terms of privacy and security , maybe Session?

Having a secure fallback for digital communication is always a good idea. Session might actually be somewhat helpful for this, due to its simple account creation process and no PII needed. However, it's worth noting that Session is nowhere near SimpleX in terms of privacy and security, as its cryptography is far worse than Signal's, to say the least.
Technically even an e-mail address is enough for this, depending on your threat model, of course.

Linux Would this ensure availability independent of specific servers?

To the best of my knowledge, it will provide two or more paths for sending messages to a contact, along with automatically switching servers used to receive, so yes.

Ilgar

Molly with passphrase and unified push is the only decent way to use messenger AFU as of today.

schweizer

Ilgar Definitely not. It still requires a phone number causing a privacy issue. And I do not like that Signal is a trust. You are not the customer. And its US controlled servers are a downside too.

Linux

IcyScroll Correct. Right now its possible to mitigate this concern by sharing per-profile address with your contacts. This link will likely depend on a different server than the one used for receiving messages. This is not foolproof as your contact would have to manually use your address after noticing the failure. There's also a possibility that you would change the address after a server used by your contact (to receive messages from you) had been shut down, rendering them unable to contact you, as the last address that was shared with them would be obsolete.

So the approach is to make 2 connection per conntact, 1 via one time link and one via per profile link?

IcyScroll Having a secure fallback for digital communication is always a good idea. Session might actually be somewhat helpful for this, due to its simple account creation process and no PII needed. However, it's worth noting that Session is nowhere near SimpleX in terms of privacy and security, as its cryptography is far worse than Signal's, to say the least.
Technically even an e-mail address is enough for this, depending on your threat model, of course.

Is there a better option then Session, as a backup to SimpleX, that allows for MITM resistant messaging?
The problem I have with most other solutions like Matrix or XMPP, is that you need to put a lot of trust in the server.
Mainly because at the moment, their is no option to link directly with public keys or at least view the public key of a contact (to verify against a post of this public key on another platform).

I very much appreciate that SimpleX is by default MITM resistant because its places the public key inside the sharing link.

JollyRancher

schweizer
While the phone number requirement is problematic, the rest of that post is pretty ill informed.

Unless you make it onto a US (or Five Eyes to a lesser extent) NatSec targeting list where the US federal government is willing to expend serious effort going after you, the US is actually about the most privacy friendly jurisdiction around.

There are zero restrictions on what kinds and degree of encryption are legal in the US.

Any attempt to go after/target someone based on speech or political beliefs is going to run headlong into the First Amendment.

US courts are notoriously bad about localizing foreign subpoenas for data. Unless the foreign LEO's can get the FBI on board with the investigation and to apply for the subpoena, it basically goes nowhere.

If law enforcement serves a subpoena on Signal they receive 1) associated phone number, 2) date the Signal account was established, 3) date of last Signal login.

Law enforcement can clone your phone number and thus swipe the associated Signal account and thus receive any future Signal messages sent to you but they can't see past messages or contacts.

If your threat model involves serious, directed, effort from the US NatSec establishment then you should default to basically everything electronic being compromised.

Ilgar

schweizer I'm definitely aware about trade of about metadata and 14 eye intelligence with encrypted molly, but in my opinion it's better than threema because of AFU usage. If threema would provide BFU notifications (I'm not even asking for molly style encrypted storage) I would start using it again, after they implemented PFS, even though swiss laws dropped the ball of privacy and neutrality recently either.

schweizer

JollyRancher While the phone number requirement is problematic, the rest of that post is pretty ill informed.

While I do not know everything I still think I am better informed than you.

JollyRancher Law enforcement can clone your phone number and thus swipe the associated Signal account and thus receive any future Signal messages sent to you

See? They couldn't do that with Threema because it does not rely on phone numbers. Hence Signal and its clones are not the only best messenger out there.

The US are not sticking to their own laws. At least not if non US citizens are involved. Did you hear about a guy called Edward Snowden? Your answer sounds very naive to me. Industrial espionage is AFAIK not forbidden to US services. Thus consider the (current) US government as hostile and I am not alone. Maybe even some US residents will agree with me.

Onlyfun

JollyRancher Any attempt to go after/target someone based on speech or political beliefs is going to run headlong into the First Amendment.

Disclaimer I'm not going into any political discussion, I just could not pass by above quoted statememt as is.
No offence but this statement is sooo not true/naive. They came after terrorists in Iraq, hailing democracy an human rights, including promoting Saddam to being hang. Wondering which amendment exactly were they following? :))

To the point of this thread. I see simplex way ahead of other messengers, and use it of course, trying my best to move my circles into it.

cb474

IcyScroll Thanks for the explanation. I did see the note on the Simplex website about the desktop app synchronizing if you are on the same local network. Does that mean once I link the desktop app to my mobile device that if I leave home, exchange some messages, and come back later, it will continue to work? Or am I going to have to relink every time? (My current technical understanding of Simplex is not very high.)

I appreciate that there are better and worse ways to do this from a security point of view. But I think my threat model is not so high that I am going to worry about it.

JollyRancher

schweizer

The US are not sticking to their own laws. At least not if non US citizens are involved.

The US is generally obeying its long standing laws, its just that most people are very ignorant of what those laws are. A non US citizen outside of the US has zero privacy rights under US law, the NSA and friends are legally able to spy on such individuals to their hearts content essentially at whim. Entry into the US for non citizens is a privilege, and one that can be contingent upon providing full access to your electronic devices and data.

If a non citizen outside the US is using a US based service they don't gain any legal rights but the service itself has them. Whether or not the service chooses to exercise its rights and fight to protect its customers is up to them.

Did you hear about a guy called Edward Snowden?
Yes, what about the traitor? Very little of what he leaked actually violated US law and a lot of it was wholly legitimate NatSec operations.

Your answer sounds very naive to me. Industrial espionage is AFAIK not forbidden to US services. Thus consider the (current) US government as hostile and I am not alone. Maybe even some US residents will agree with me.

That depends entirely on what you mean by "industrial espionage". Its also not, as a practical matter, forbidden to any nations corporate entities. Incidentally, EU firms regularly engage in industrial espionage as well.

Bluntly, today, it is not the US that is going after digital privacy, end to end encryption, or electronic security in general. Its the EU and its member states pushing that.

« Previous Page Next Page »