Uh yeah… It isn’t. Like at all.
So exactly as secure as we thought, then.
No, it’s even less secure than expected. We expected that Sunbird would have access to your Apple ID and messages. Instead, everyone in the world has access to your Apple ID and messages.
Definitely like Nothing we were hoping for.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, but I got absolutely roasted in YouTube comments for pointing out some potential shortcomings in the architecture. I’m not about to claim a high level of authority on the topic, though I’m an old man who has been in the game for a while, but the people that were totally confident really just seemed very eager to accept the passing of their credentials in a very sketchy way to get a slightly different messaging experience.
Just use signal folks.
my guy, there are much more pleasant ways of getting cancer than visiting Youtube’s comment section
Right? I feel like people here are on even more crazy pills + copium than I am lol.
Edit: Take me to ur dealer(s) 👾
deleted by creator
What? It’s not crazy unstable, I’ve never had an issue with it.
Someone didn’t take their crazy pills this morning.
deleted by creator
If everyone you text with are on iPhone anyway, there’s no logical reason to switch iMessage off and use SMS.
Never personally had any issues with iMessage (not sure which parts you think “suck” and are “unstable”).
80% of my contacts use iMessage, the rest use Signal.
I mean I’m a firm FOSS guy, I love Lineage and Signal and all of it, but you’re factually just wrong my guy
deleted by creator
Yeah no shit, it’s a badly put together hack. They should not be advertising this embarrassing mess.
That’s saying something as I don’t think anyone thought it was particularly secure
I don’t get the buzz around this. It’s a really ugly hack, it’s costing someone money to run those mac servers, and the longevity of the service is questionable.
If only there was a law forcing messaging services to open an API for free choice of 3rd party apps…
Why does iMessage need a solution? Solutions indicate problems. The only problem I can see is elitist kids and people whining about bubble colors.
The problem is breaking up the network effect from messaging apps.
Noone is uninstalling WhatsApp since there’s always that one guy you need to keep in contact with that refuses to change.
Having aggregators like this is helping break up this
iMessage itself really isn’t as secure as some think.
deleted by creator
Your security is actually worse than a pinky promise in that case because you also have to consider that they could be hacked.
Beeper is pretty good with it, as they make it clear that it’s insecure and use an encrypted protocol to get the messages to the server. Still, it’s better to host your own (which Beeper lets you do, as it’s just Matrix) or not use it.
How so?
Due to complexity and limited auditing a number of vulnerabilites have slipped through again & again, like zero-click exploits for example. Take a look at the sear volume of CVEs and more importantly what they entail. While they do eventually get found & patched, its not ideal compared to other messaging apps like signal that are very much security first, features 2nd.
A lot of people(normies), especially Apple users tend to think it’s super secure virtually impenetrable technology.The sheer volume of cves is not necessarily an indicator for insecurity. The CVE system is pretty bad and rulings are mostly arbitrary. For example, there was a recent curl “CVE”, where an overflow happened in some part of the app which was not relevant to security. I don’t remember the details, but the only solution to this apperent mess was that the main contributor of curl is becoming one of the guys that evaluate CVEs.
CVE is a measure for the US government, and always assumes the worst in any case.
That being said, I agree with you.
I know what curl CVE you’re referring too.
Yeah, that was pretty stupid, they marked it high severity when 1 It was already patched like a year prior and 2 it was a complete non-issue in the first place.
Then some fuckin AI put forth another bogus CVE based on the one you’re referring.
The curl dev was pissed, and rightfully so.And You’re right, it’s more so the details of the CVEs that’s important then the actual CVEs themselves.
My man everyone and their favourite state sponsored hacking group is trying to break iMessage, of course there’s going to be a shed load of CVEs compared to other less popular tools.
The main problem with iMessage is the limited audits. It’s a very complex application and with that complexity comes higher risk for vulnerabilities to slip through. It’d be way less of an issue if it was at least source available so more people could audit it, instead of just whomever gets permission from Apple.
Like Apple’s bounty system is great and all, but it’s not as effective as for example being able to directly scrutinize signals open source codebase.
The problem with Apple’s approach is that even if someone finds and reports the vulnerability for the bounty money, that still means that vulnerability has made it into the production code and thus made it onto consumer devices. Unlike an open codebase where the vulnerability is more likely to be caught before it reaches consumer devices.You can argue that the code being openly available isn’t necessary indictive of being secure, which is true, but it’s certainly more favorable and for signal it’s worked out very well. Also there’s plenty of state sponsored hacking groups trying to break signal. Maybe not as many, sure. However it’s a lot less likely they’ll succeed in breaking signal then iMessage.
Infact, just recently signal had to dismiss a 0-day vulnerability report people were freaking out about because it turned out completely bogus. Thought, I suppose that’s beside the point.“Security through obscurity is not security” - some guy idk.
