|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

TextSecure and SMS transport

By Nathan Willis
April 1, 2015

Like it or not, an ever-increasing percentage of the world's computing and communication takes place over mobile phone networks. But there has historically been a dearth of privacy- and security-protecting software targeting mobile devices—a fact that made it all the more alarming when the developers of the TextSecure messaging app for Android announced that they were dropping support for encrypting Short Message Service (SMS) text messages in the next release. The developers' argument is that supporting the SMS network is simply not worth the effort in comparison to messages delivered over generic data transports. Needless to say, not everyone agrees with that assessment.

For those unfamiliar with it, TextSecure is an open-source app developed by Open Whisper Systems (OWS), a non-commercial project that produces a number of free, security-driven mobile apps. Several of the team members (including Moxie Marlinspike and Lilia Kai) are well-known for their history with other privacy and security efforts.

Up through version 2.6 (which was released March 5), TextSecure let users exchange encrypted messages delivered over SMS, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), or its own "TextSecure transport layer" that used the phone's data connection. Starting with version 2.8.0 (which was released March 19), only the TextSecure transport layer is supported. The message format uses ephemeral Curve25519 keys, and the app performs the key exchange between clients over the same transport used for the message itself. In other words, when two TextSecure users communicate over SMS, the key-exchange step is done over SMS as well.

While that makes perfect sense from a design standpoint, it was evidently part of the burden of supporting SMS transport that OWS found increasingly difficult. In the announcement heralding the end of SMS support, OWS notes that the key exchange "can never be seamless" over SMS and that "we don’t believe that people should even need to know what a “key” is, so this added bit of friction has always felt wrong to us." In addition, users who uninstall TextSecure might continue to get encrypted SMS messages from their old contacts, which would then amount to useless, garbled text.

The announcement goes on to list three other reasons why SMS transport is being dropped. First, OWS has finally released a TextSecure-compatible app for iOS, and iOS does not include an API that could be used to encrypt or decrypt SMS traffic—making data-channel message exchange the only possibility for iOS–Android conversations.

Second, it says, SMS itself is fundamentally insecure. The messages "leak all possible metadata 100% of the time to thousands of cellular carriers worldwide." Although users like to think of text-messaging as an "offline" option, the announcement adds, in reality the messages are all routed through carriers' servers, where metadata is logged and, perhaps, even monitored by government entities (something that the US National Security Agency is reported to do). Ultimately, the announcement said, the effort required to support SMS was holding back other, more important work on the project.

The third point made in the announcement is that SMS is not as widely used as many smartphone users seem to believe. Unlimited messaging plans are really only available in the US and Europe, it said, and SMS can be quite expensive for much of the rest of the world.

Y U NO ENCRYPT?

Public reaction to the announcement varied (the Reddit discussion thread, for example, covers most of the comment responses). While some agreed that the limitations of SMS and its exposure to carrier data-logging make it a poor choice for the truly security-conscious, the fact remains that there are few—if any—alternative apps that offer any sort of privacy for SMS users.

The loss of the only reliable SMS-encryption mechanism is significant because it effectively leaves an entire transport unprotected. Although it has its shortcomings, SMS is often available in more areas than data services, it works across carrier boundaries, and could be used on a phone whose International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number is not previously associated with (for example) a Google account.

There are several other options available for encrypted smartphone chat over data networks (ChatSecure and SilentText, for example), but having no option for SMS messaging could leave some users out in the cold. After all, there are usually ways to minimize the metadata-collection issue, such as using store-bought phones and prepaid account-refill cards. Using more elaborate measures, one can gain quite a bit of anonymity.

But that is a solution that puts significant burdens onto the user; one of TextSecure's strengths has always been its ease of use. Users who still have version 2.6.0 can simply refuse to update to a more recent version, although there is a risk that future releases will break compatibility. In that case, users that want to communicate to some contacts over SMS and to others that use an updated TextSecure will find themselves in a bind.

Luckily, fans of the SMS-transport option have created a fork of the TextSecure 2.6 code, named SMSSecure. Even better, SMSSecure has been added to the submission queue at the F-Droid free-software repository for Android. TextSecure was removed from the F-Droid repository in 2012 for a number of reasons. Among those reasons were that OWS reportedly asked F-Droid not to distribute its own builds (i.e., packages signed by F-Droid and not OWS), and the fact that TextSecure used some proprietary libraries—namely Google's "Google Play Services."

On that last point, OWS's announcement about dropping SMS also noted that it would be dropping Google Play Services—at least for data transport. The Google library will still be used to relay wakeup events, the announcement said.

Among security professionals, a recurring refrain is that cell phones represent a far larger (and more important) attack surface than desktop machines and, thus, should be the focus of privacy- and security-development initiatives. Nevertheless, there are still precious few free-software apps for mobile devices that offer solid security and privacy features. Time will tell if SMSSecure will fill the gap opened by TextSecure's abandonment of text messaging, but it is reassuring to see that the community cares about such matters.


to post comments

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 2:12 UTC (Thu) by JdGordy (subscriber, #70103) [Link] (3 responses)

> Unlimited messaging plans are really only available in the US and Europe, it said, and SMS can be quite expensive for much of the rest of the world.

Just wanted to point out that they are pretty ubiquitous here in .au also

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 9:26 UTC (Thu) by gerdesj (subscriber, #5446) [Link] (1 responses)

As a market, the USA + Canada? + Europe + Aus + NZ? + others is pretty big. Those countries also have a very high proportion of mobile/cell users. So to say "only available" is a bit disingenuous.

I think I'll be evaluating a fork.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 17:26 UTC (Thu) by Zero_Dogg (subscriber, #31310) [Link]

Another point of note is that, at least here (Norway), data charges abroad are quite insane, while sending an SMS is relatively cheap (at least cheaper). So, personally, I generally disable data when roaming abroad, and just use wifi's and «normal» phone features when abroad.

I'll certainly be deleting TextSecure now, it is essentially useless. I'll give the fork a look.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 11:43 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]

Here in .br, on at least two carriers I know of, at least on their prepaid plans, you pay a fixed value for the first SMS sent in the day (IIRC R$ 0,70 for the carrier I use), and the rest of the SMS sent that day are free.

(Technically, when you send that first SMS you are automatically buying a daily unlimited SMS plan for that price. The same trick applies to data access, but the automatic plan has a transfer limit of only 10 MB; it's still way cheaper than paying per megabyte was.)

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 6:10 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] (1 responses)

Isn't there an open-source way to do whatever Google Play's wakeup service is doing?

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 7, 2015 14:17 UTC (Tue) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link]

Yes and no. I'll talk only about Google Cloud Messaging (GCM), and only the client part, running on the device. It's mostly doable in Android to do push if you accept that your app is always running to maintain the TCP connection to a server and is always taking a spot in the notification bar.

Now, if you're root, you can do the same without taking a spot in the notification bar.

But imagine if every app did that? Always maintaining a TCP connection to a remote server, waking up the device at every keep-alive ? Your battery life would plummet.

That's why what GCM is doing is both good and bad; good because there's only one always-running, finely tuned, TCP connection between you and Google's server that takes care of all push. It's bad because it's hard to provide the same service for competing solutions (has to be root), and the proliferation of such services is quite bad for your device's battery.

Last but not least, OpenWhisper Systems actually have such an alternative for TextSecure, called WhisperPush, that they use for CyanogenMod devices.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 7:21 UTC (Thu) by mbunkus (subscriber, #87248) [Link] (4 responses)

I've been using TextSecure as my primary messaging app for a while now. I can replace the system's default messaging application, but here's where my biggest complaint lies: it cannot send SMS to multiple recipients. Want to message your two siblings (who don't use TextSecure)? Send to one, copy message, send to other. Want to send to five people? Tough luck! Have fun copy & pasting.

Their stance ( https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/413 ) is that SMS is a legacy protocol and they won't support that properly… Which I humbly disagree with. SMS are dirt cheap in Europe, they're used by everyone (and TextSecure most certainly isn't!), and their proposed »solution« (MMS) is what's actually really expensive here.

So now I'm in a nightmarish kind of situation: I have to actively remember which messenger the target person is using. Am I writing Kathrin? Use WhatsApp or Skype. My parents? Both use TextSecure, so TextSecure it is. Philip? Uses Threema. But now I want to write Philip and Bastian, and as Bastian can only be reached via SMS I have to use… well… either Android's stock messaging application or use TextSecure and create two SMS or use Threema for Philip and TextSecure or Android's stock messaging app for Bastian…

Totally insane. And I'm someone who can actually remember what my friends are using. My point is: as great as »new messenger of the day« may be it only causes more pain for the users as they're all incompatible with each other.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 9, 2015 6:27 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (2 responses)

I settled on Telegram, because it works everywhere and is in F-Droid. It may not be perfect but it is featureful, free and FOSS. Way better than OWSs Googlecrap.

I refuse to use anything else. People will eventually install it if they think you are important. I converted nearly everybody I know. Threema, Textsecure and all the others cannot match Telegrams ease of use (Whatsapp clone), x-platformess, price and features(groups, broadcasts etc)

And I know that security is not perfect, but at least it is real FOSS and not based in US of NSA.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 9, 2015 8:13 UTC (Thu) by Shugyousha (subscriber, #93672) [Link] (1 responses)

> I settled on Telegram, because it works everywhere and is in F-Droid. It may not be perfect but it is featureful, free and FOSS. Way better than OWSs Googlecrap.

As far as I can tell, Telegram is not FOSS:

https://telegram.org/faq#q-why-not-open-source-everything

My friends seem to be using it now though and I am not sure I can convince them to use TextSecure instead. Having a written, detailed feature comparison between TextSecure and Telegram would be very useful.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 9, 2015 12:59 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

All the clients are FOSS though. Federation is a "maybe" going by the next FAQ.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 9, 2015 20:42 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> SMS are dirt cheap in Europe, they're used by everyone (and TextSecure most certainly isn't!), and their proposed »solution« (MMS) is what's actually really expensive here.

You don't get free MMS in any data plan that I'm aware of (UK). And if you're on prepay I think typical costs are 5p (about 8c) for SMS and 35p (50c) for MMS. I think my el-cheapo bottom end plan gives me about 5000 SMS/month - no way would I want to send that number of MMS, the cost would be exorbitant!

Cheers,
Wol

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted Apr 2, 2015 17:21 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

> The loss of the only reliable SMS-encryption mechanism is significant
> because it effectively leaves an entire transport unprotected.

The problem is that most of the protection you think you have in encrypting SMS and MMS is theatre. These are not just sending postcards from user to user. These are you sending a return-receipt certified mail postcard with all kinds of data added which makes what is in the postcard not as 'important' as the data you do not know about.

You will probably have as much security doing it all in piglatin as with any application.

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 10, 2015 0:53 UTC (Fri) by aryonoco (guest, #55563) [Link] (6 responses)

I feel like the FOSS community is perhaps getting old and out of touch with modern computing environment.

Who even uses SMS anymore? I don't even remember the last time I received an SMS that was not an automated message. Between Viber and WhatsApp and Snapchat and Facebook Messenger and iMessage and Hangout and Line and WeChat and Kakao (and I can go on), why would anyone willingly use SMS?

If you want encryption, use TextSecure or Telegram. FOSS clients, end to end encryption, and with Telegram there are clients for Web and Chrome and Linux and all other OSes as well, so I can move from my phone to my computer and carry out the exact same conversation.

I've been in India and South East Asia recently, data packages are very common, and I didn't see a single smartphone user without at least some puny data allowance. Sure in most cases it was 50MB per month, but that's plenty for text messaging.

SMS is an accident of history. Time to put it to rest. We have Cat 6 LTE now. No need to cling on to a crippled, insecure, limited transport mechanism.

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 10, 2015 2:30 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> Who even uses SMS anymore?

50 billion or so SMS messages a day translates to "a whole lot of people"

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 10, 2015 10:15 UTC (Fri) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link] (1 responses)

> No need to cling on to a crippled, insecure, limited transport mechanism.

...which everyone has. From the cheapest and oldest featurephone to the latest and greatest smartphone.

Being ubiquitous has its advantages.

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted May 4, 2015 13:05 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

The cheapest and oldest featurephone doesn't and will never do encrypted SMS. Also, encrypted SMS still leaks plenty of metadata.

If you want crypto, use data. No way around it.

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 10, 2015 11:05 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

I do. SMS works in places where both voice and data service are unusably flaky and there is no open unencrypted wifi in the vicinity, which makes it handy for things like "tell my friends that I'm going to be late because my train is delayed due to the wrong kind of idiot[1] on the line".

[1] FAOD I mean trespassers, not suicides.

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 10, 2015 19:16 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

> We have Cat 6 LTE now.

And if you're on a data plan which can be burnt in less than 30 minutes of actually *using* the LTE speeds (assuming a (generous) 4GB cap and a 20Mb/s pipe (which is close to the speeds I can squeeze from Verizon)), why would you "waste" that data when SMS is available?

Who even uses SMS anymore?

Posted Apr 15, 2015 11:57 UTC (Wed) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link]

Since you're talking about wasting data, let's do a quick calculation. Say a textsecure message uses 2kB of data (with http and protocol overhead); say you are a heavy user, so you send 200 and receive 400 messages a day. This would mean (200+400)*31*2 = 37.2 MB per month of data, which is less than 1% of your 4GB cap.

TextSecure and SMS transport

Posted May 1, 2015 12:29 UTC (Fri) by David4567 (guest, #102317) [Link] (1 responses)

Do NOT upgrade if you are on a Text Secure version v2.6.x or before

If you do, Moxie (lead developer) has removed SMS Encryption after v2.6.x

This release log information is NOT visible on the Google Playstore
when you try to upgrade. Moxie the Moron doesn’t want people to know he
has removed the SMS Encryption after v2.6.4 otherwise no one would
upgrade.

Since Moxie (the utter Moron) has removed SMS Encryption (for no real
reason except to cement a deal with WhatsApp) after version v2.6.4,
there is no point using Text Secure any more

Moxie the Moron has put self interest using an open source platform ahead of maintaining E2E SMS Encryption for all

I suggest to ‘uninstall’ Text Secure and use the more stable Open Source platforms

- Chat Secure (Open Source) - E2E IM Encryption – more feature rich and stable than Text Secure.
Can be downloaded and installed with the Google Playstore (unlike crappy Text Secure)
https://chatsecure.org

- SMS Secure (Open Source) - E2E SMS Encryption
Can be downloaded and installed with the Google Playstore (unlike crappy Text Secure)
https://smssecure.org

Plonk! … there goes my uninstall of Text Secure after 3 years

Hope to never use another of your products Moxie the Moron !!!

Enough

Posted May 1, 2015 13:21 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

So what is it with people today? If you're unhappy with a particular release, and it sounds like you might have reason to be, then by all means say why. But can we be done with the kindergarten name-calling...please?


Copyright © 2015, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds