<![CDATA[EN: Headline: “Signal Hacked” – No.]]>RE: https://social.tchncs.de/@kuketzblog/116464952827497758

EN: Headline: “Signal Hacked” – No. Nobody was hacked.

What really happened: Politicians clicked on a phishing link and revealed their verification code or PIN. Signal itself has not been compromised, the encryption works perfectly.

This is not a failure of the app, but a failure of basic digital skills. (...)

The scary thing is that the very people who decide on IT security, laws and surveillance do not master the basic digital rules.

-
Note: The reason they don't .

]]>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/6cd5575b-d788-49f5-8ee3-6111cfb153b6/en-headline-signal-hacked-no.RSS for NodeFri, 15 May 2026 02:54:27 GMTSun, 26 Apr 2026 07:38:10 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to EN: Headline: “Signal Hacked” – No. on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:45:45 GMT]]>@leavex whilst technically correct, I'd argue that there is a burden of care required by Signal or any other app. Why is pin verification required? Is a PIN an appropriate validation method? How is it that users could think that the phishing method be easily mistaken for a genuine request?

I've been a Signal user for some years, and I'm pretty digitally literature. It's not clear how PIN verification helps security, or why it is required when it's required.

]]>https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://mastodon.social/users/toychicken/statuses/116470129959658962https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://mastodon.social/users/toychicken/statuses/116470129959658962Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:45:45 GMT