• Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      No they can’t.

      E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.

          • Natanael@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 minutes ago

            I run a cryptography forum

            Encryption doesn’t hide data sizes unless you take extra steps

          • papertowels@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            53 seconds ago

            How exactly do you think encryption prevents the analysis of seeing when an encrypted message is sent? It feels like you’re trying to waive a magic wand and say “encryption means you’re good!”

            Cyber security is not my thing, but my understanding is that you’d still see network traffic - you just wouldn’t know what it says.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            25 minutes ago

            Packet data has headers that can identify where it’s coming from and where it’s going to. The contents of the packet can be securely encrypted, but destination is not. So long as you know which IPs Signal’s servers use (which is public information), it’s trivial to know when a device is sending/receiving messages with Signal.

            This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing, it’s impossible to know the actual destination because that’s part of the encrypted payload that a different node will decrypt and forward.