this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
1250 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

79476 readers
4257 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As evidence, the lawsuit cites unnamed "courageous whistleblowers" who allege that WhatsApp and Meta employees can request to view a user's messages through a simple process, thus bypassing the app's end-to-end encryption. "A worker need only send a 'task' (i.e., request via Meta's internal system) to a Meta engineer with an explanation that they need access to WhatsApp messages for their job," the lawsuit claims. "The Meta engineering team will then grant access -- often without any scrutiny at all -- and the worker's workstation will then have a new window or widget available that can pull up any WhatsApp user's messages based on the user's User ID number, which is unique to a user but identical across all Meta products."

"Once the Meta worker has this access, they can read users' messages by opening the widget; no separate decryption step is required," the 51-page complaint adds. "The WhatsApp messages appear in widgets commingled with widgets containing messages from unencrypted sources. Messages appear almost as soon as they are communicated -- essentially, in real-time. Moreover, access is unlimited in temporal scope, with Meta workers able to access messages from the time users first activated their accounts, including those messages users believe they have deleted." The lawsuit does not provide any technical details to back up the rather sensational claims.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EisFrei@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
  1. Why would meta have access to signal's memory?
  2. That's why code audits have been done multiple times.
  3. Reproducible builds. Signal has those since 2016
[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

about the 3rd, is the end apk file downloaded by a useer on the playstore reproducible? could google add stuff to the apk before the user downloading it? do users ever bother checking if the apk hash matches the one from the reproducible build?

[–] 9bananas@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

yes, that's why it's called fingerprinting:

it's a kind of mathematical function that takes the entire code as input and outputs a unique result.

the result is just some string of symbols (which really just represent a unique string of 1's and 0's).

this unique string of characters is, as mentioned, unique for any given input.

this string can then be compared to any arbitrary other string, and if they match, then you know it's the same code.

so in the case of signal anybody can download the source, compile it, and verify that it matches the fingerprint of the compiled code on their own device.

that's why it can't be faked: you compare the already compiled code.

if even a single digit of the code is out of place, it's not going to result in the same string, and thus immediately get flagged as a mismatch.

it's mathematically impossible to fake.

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

While I agree with you I did just want to point out one thing.

This:

it's mathematically impossible to fake.

Is not entirely true persay, every hashing function does have collisions that can occur. But the likely hood that someone baked an exploit in that kept the application functioning while adding their backdoor all the while somehow creating a hash collision with the original fingerprint is practically zero and honestly if someone did pull that off, fucking hats off because that has to be some sort of math and coding wizard beyond most. I should also point out that the file size would most likely/have to be different so there should be other methods of detecting the compromised build regardless.

Sorry I know that was very pedantic of me but I did want to call that out because its technically possible but the actual likely hood has to be so miniscule its almost irrelevant along with the fact that other tells would surely exist.