• Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah fuck security in layers, my first layer is 100% bulletproof so I got no reason to worry

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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)