> Of course, people here who have recommended Signal are silent about these issues and rather continue to bash gpg.

I've reviewed Signal extensively on my blog. https://soatok.blog/2025/02/18/reviewing-the-cryptography-us...

I analyze cryptosystems based on what an attacker can do, given sufficient capabilities.

"The user adds the wrong person to a group chat" is not a cryptographic weakness, nor a particularly interesting one. Why would I have anything to say about it?

We aren't "silent" about your pet peeves. We just have lives and more interesting things to talk about.

> EDIT: tptacek enters the chat, my messages are downvoted. This is how he convinces people to use Signal.

This kind of comment gets people banned from Hacker News. Please stop that.

▲

bgwalter 5 days ago | parent [-]

Of course you omit the QR code issue in your response, just like tptacek tried to deflect in the other subthread after his Cryptocat objection was refuted.

▲

some_furry 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Of course you omit the QR code issue in your response,

What? You mean a vulnerability that was mitigated in February of last year? In what sense am I obligated to comment on such a thing? You use the verb "omit" as if such an obligation exists. This is delusional rhetoric.

First you complain about tptacek choosing to comment about a tangent, and then you get upset that I didn't entertain your tangent. Pick a lane.

> just like tptacek tried to deflect in the other subthread after his Cryptocat objection was refuted.

I didn't see a refutation.

▲

bgwalter 5 days ago | parent [-]

I no longer respond if you use Simple Sabotage Field Manual tactics.

EDIT: The submission was flagged from the front page seconds after this reference.

	▲	some_furry 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I no longer respond You just did. > if you use Simple Sabotage Field Manual tactics. No idea what you're even talking about there. > EDIT: The submission was flagged from the front page seconds after this reference. Okay...?