Hi,
We make Contactive(it's an app)(just to make sure we're on the same page here). It's guaranteed to (insert sips ref here) rustle your jimmies.
We've received some great feedback lately and we're hungry like a wolf for moar. That's where you come in:fingers-crossed:. Fill our suggestion box full of stuff. Types of feedback that we like to munch on:
- all positive comments
- A bunch of five stars pls
- words that want to make us cry
- And I'm legally binded to ask for some constructive criticism. Not too much though. Our dev's get angry pretty easily(please do not tweet to contactive that i said that).
Also too our lead dev is single(lololololol) he like's to go on very brief walks on the beach, he gets tired very easily, and his fave movie is the about the ring.
I guess I should say something about the app now. Um, well it makes your phone ring, or vibrate, when you get a call. It tells you if a celebrity is calling you like Dr. Dre or if its your mailman, or if its just your mum.
But wait there's more:highfive:, if your mom's on twitter, and let's face it there's like a 99% chance she is, it will show you her latest tweet before you pick up her call... you'll be prepared. Also too it'll import all of your friends from Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin(if you have a job), and Gmail to your phone's address book. It identifies unknown callers too by crawling over the inter-webs for all public information connected to that number(ie. location, name,a picture if available, and some other stuff I cant remember.
Seriously though View attachment 2043155
http://contactive.com/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/...forums&utm_medium=XDADevelopers&utm_term=post
Also I forgot to say that our website is the bees knees, so click the link in the op. pls.
contactive_dave said:
Hi,
We make Contactive(it's an app)(just to make sure we're on the same page here). It's guaranteed to (insert sips ref here) rustle your jimmies.
We've received some great feedback lately and we're hungry like a wolf for moar. That's where you come in:fingers-crossed:. Fill our suggestion box full of stuff. Types of feedback that we like to munch on:
- all positive comments
- A bunch of five stars pls
- words that want to make us cry
- And I'm legally binded to ask for some constructive criticism. Not too much though. Our dev's get angry pretty easily(please do not tweet to contactive that i said that).
Also too our lead dev is single(lololololol) he like's to go on very brief walks on the beach, he gets tired very easily, and his fave movie is the about the ring.
I guess I should say something about the app now. Um, well it makes your phone ring, or vibrate, when you get a call. It tells you if a celebrity is calling you like Dr. Dre or if its your mailman, or if its just your mum.
But wait there's more:highfive:, if your mom's on twitter, and let's face it there's like a 99% chance she is, it will show you her latest tweet before you pick up her call... you'll be prepared. Also too it'll import all of your friends from Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin(if you have a job), and Gmail to your phone's address book. It identifies unknown callers too by crawling over the inter-webs for all public information connected to that number(ie. location, name,a picture if available, and some other stuff I cant remember.
Seriously though View attachment 2043155
http://contactive.com/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/...forums&utm_medium=XDADevelopers&utm_term=post
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The app looks pretty nice ... :good: ... And the WebSIte Design ... AWESOME !! (may i ask who made the website ?) .... Keep up ... !! :good:
Looks awesome. can we get a dark theme?
this apps sounds good, gonna give a try. thread subscribe. thks to dev team :good:
I'm not trying to discredit your app but what does it bring that the others don't have ? I tried it works exactly like https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callapp.contacts that is my main contacts app
Giving it a try; seems like a useful application, but I am a little concerned about the massive consolidation of personal information. The privacy policy is a good read!
Can you add a feature to remove duplicate numbers in phone contacts
This is good:good:, but feel they have two or more contacts,
numbers on the phone does not directly connect to facebook
hanifbsk said:
Can you add a feature to remove duplicate numbers in phone contacts
This is good:good:, but feel they have two or more contacts,
numbers on the phone does not directly connect to facebook
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what do you mean by duplicate numbers?
hisname said:
what do you mean by duplicate numbers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a lot of duplicate numbers in the phone
eg for my number, there are 4 same name in the phonebook,
and it automatically removes it,
and hope this app can change the google phonebook, not only the number on the application
niranjan94 said:
The app looks pretty nice ... :good: ... And the WebSIte Design ... AWESOME !! (may i ask who made the website ?) .... Keep up ... !! :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks! our in-house front-end guy plus designer made it.
honki24 said:
Looks awesome. can we get a dark theme?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We've had a few requests for theme customization. right now, we're busy with bug fixes and core features, but we're hoping to get to a place where we can work on themes. We know the blue is super bright, and some people like it, some people don't.
exadeci said:
I'm not trying to discredit your app but what does it bring that the others don't have ? I tried it works exactly like https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callapp.contacts that is my main contacts app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. CallApp is our main competitor - and right now we do pretty much the same thing. But we're tryna eventually leapfrog them.
hanifbsk said:
Can you add a feature to remove duplicate numbers in phone contacts
This is good:good:, but feel they have two or more contacts,
numbers on the phone does not directly connect to facebook
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure what's happening there but Contactive SHOULD be taking care of your duplicate numbers. There's also an option to manually merge/link profiles when you go into an individual profile and hit settings. Could you shoot us an email at [email protected]?
PS. Thank you to @TheRomMistress for the article!
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how your app works and where the line in privacy is.
Without actually installing your app, my theory is...
* Your app takes a snapshot of my address book and pushes that to a 3rd party service
* This service builds up a database of numbers, names, and useful information to find people on social networking sites
* Some of this information is pushed back down to the user for their particular contact
* Once a call comes in, if the user already exists the app should know which accounts on what social networks the pole for the callers most recent postings
* If the caller doesn't exist in the address book, a quick ping off to the 3rd party service is made to request any known information on this new caller's phone number, and that's pushed back down to the user and relevant content is shown
Is all that approximately correct or do I have it all backwards? Thanks!
I'm really liking the layout of this app. Good work! Could you guys incorporate a way to turn of the dialer sound?
rubin110 said:
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how your app works and where the line in privacy is.
Without actually installing your app, my theory is...
* Your app takes a snapshot of my address book and pushes that to a 3rd party service
* This service builds up a database of numbers, names, and useful information to find people on social networking sites
* Some of this information is pushed back down to the user for their particular contact
* Once a call comes in, if the user already exists the app should know which accounts on what social networks the pole for the callers most recent postings
* If the caller doesn't exist in the address book, a quick ping off to the 3rd party service is made to request any known information on this new caller's phone number, and that's pushed back down to the user and relevant content is shown
Is all that approximately correct or do I have it all backwards? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Iam totally agree with RUBIN110..Big concern is privacy .I'm not trying to discredit your app but App from Newyork ..,,,Whats About NSA?..Whats about U.S. and British government mass surveillance programs?
I really like the look of the app and I want to use it, but I'm concerned about the privacy aspects.
Do you collect the data and use or store it outside of this app?
rubin110 said:
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how your app works and where the line in privacy is.
Without actually installing your app, my theory is...
* Your app takes a snapshot of my address book and pushes that to a 3rd party service
* This service builds up a database of numbers, names, and useful information to find people on social networking sites
* Some of this information is pushed back down to the user for their particular contact
* Once a call comes in, if the user already exists the app should know which accounts on what social networks the pole for the callers most recent postings
* If the caller doesn't exist in the address book, a quick ping off to the 3rd party service is made to request any known information on this new caller's phone number, and that's pushed back down to the user and relevant content is shown
Is all that approximately correct or do I have it all backwards? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As the lowly intern, this is my understanding of how it works - from both asking a bunch of questions and sitting next to the dev guys everyday listening to what they talk about:
You got it mostly correct.
1. yes. The app saves your address book in Contactive's database and stores links (not info) to matching social network profiles. This info is NOT shared with 3rd party services.
2. yes. The service builds up a database of the following: name, number, social network IDs
3. yes. The info you see for a particular contact all depends on what info you can see if you were to visit that user's Facebook page. For example, if you are friends with Alex, all of the info you can normally see on Alex's Facebook will show up within Contactive. If you are NOT friends with Alex, only the info Alex has made public will be seen within Contactive.
4. yes - IF 1. you are friends with them already on the social networks you connect to Contactive, and/or 2. Contactive's database has connected that number to a specific social network account.
5. yes. If the caller doesnt exist in your address book, requests are sent to Contactive's database and third parties such as yelp, facebook, etc - all the different sources we use.
gaquarian said:
Iam totally agree with RUBIN110..Big concern is privacy .I'm not trying to discredit your app but App from Newyork ..,,,Whats About NSA?..Whats about U.S. and British government mass surveillance programs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're pretty sure if the NSA wanted any of the info we have, they can get it off of Facebook. LOL
imtoomuch said:
I really like the look of the app and I want to use it, but I'm concerned about the privacy aspects.
Do you collect the data and use or store it outside of this app?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. We don't use or store it for anything other than to bolster our caller ID feature. We won't sell any of our information either.
Are you able to add an option to silence the key press tone?
peedub said:
Are you able to add an option to silence the key press tone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
youre actually the second person today to ask about that. I'll bring it up to the dev team and report back.
Looks cool. Any plans for a dark theme and integrating call block( damn telemarketers)
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Some of us use Textsecure as replacement for Stock SMS app. Textsecure provides encryption for your SMS. However, my recommendation is: stay away or at least don't update to 2.X... versions.
The developer has introduced Google Cloud Messaging, which means that even if your sms are secure, the fact you are using the app will be recorded in Google Centralized database. In addition, he removed the ability of the user to regenerate new identity key. In last couple of releases, he forced the user to allow the app to contact the internet (otherwise, the app would crash). That is even if you compile the app from sources, which I did a couple of hours ago. If you download the app from Store, you can't even use it without Google account and GSF, the latter will record your every keystroke including the password used to encrypt the messages. In further addition, the app is only available through Googleplay and the developer is actively resisting third party distribution. If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself. The code is growing larger and is more difficult to examine for back door purposes.
My advice: stay away from this development, which in my view is compromised...
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter. About the same time, all those things described above started to happen. Also interesting is that the developer was put on federal watch list and was continuously harrased by various agencies when flying. So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his new employer is the previous harraser...
All more reasons to stay away from this app.
optimumpro said:
Some of us use Textsecure as replacement for Stock SMS app. Textsecure provides encryption for your SMS. However, my recommendation is: stay away or at least don't update to 2.X... versions.
The developer has introduced Google Cloud Messaging, which means that even if your sms are secure, the fact you are using the app will be recorded in Google Centralized database. In addition, he removed the ability of the user to regenerate new identity key. In last couple of releases, he forced the user to allow the app to contact the internet (otherwise, the app would crash). That is even if you compile the app from sources, which I did a couple of hours ago. If you download the app from Store, you can't even use it without Google account and GSF, the latter will record your every keystroke including the password used to encrypt the messages. In further addition, the app is only available through Googleplay and the developer is actively resisting third party distribution. If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself. The code is growing larger and is more difficult to examine for back door purposes.
My advice: stay away from this development, which in my view is compromised...
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter. About the same time, all those things described above started to happen. Also interesting is that the developer was put on federal watch list and was continuously harrased by various agencies when flying. So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his new employer is the previous harraser...
All more reasons to stay away from this app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And here is some more fresh evidence. Today I posted this info on Cyanogen site related to Textsecure Push for CM.
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/whisperpush-secure-messaging-integration
The site says it is neither censored no monitored. Within 5 minutes, the post has disappeared... . So, stay away from this app as the development has been compromised. In my view, of course...
You have no clue what youre talking about.
Corndude said:
You have no clue what youre talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, pal... for a very, very thorough, thoughtful and factual argument.
Edit: by the way, what does no gapps project have to do with textsecure being compromised?
Thanks for the heads up. Something is really amiss, and I won't want to directly experience it. I'm staying away from TextSecure for sure.
abdelazeez said:
Thanks for the heads up. Something is really amiss, and I won't want to directly experience it. I'm staying away from TextSecure for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most messenger apps today work with Google Push Notifications, seems to be no problem for people there. Funny that it is here. As for SMS, I would never use that through another app. Besides, the phone carrier companies save those probably too, whats so different with that you said ? Text Secure is a very nice app I think. Right now people on iOS don't have that app yet, which makes it hard to establish in mixed system userbases among people. But I hope that will change.
Besides, most people here probably use Twitter. Funny to complain about something that might be related to Twitter then, isn't it ?
Wolfseye
wpkwolfseye said:
Most messenger apps today work with Google Push Notifications, seems to be no problem for people there. Funny that it is here. As for SMS, I would never use that through another app. Besides, the phone carrier companies save those probably too, whats so different with that you said ? Text Secure is a very nice app I think. Right now people on iOS don't have that app yet, which makes it hard to establish in mixed system userbases among people. But I hope that will change.
Besides, most people here probably use Twitter. Funny to complain about something that might be related to Twitter then, isn't it ?
Wolfseye
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference is that Textsecure/Whisperpush/CMpush tell you your SMS are encrypted. If they are indeed encrypted and there are no backdoors, your carrier (and others) can only get encrypted SMS (good luck to them trying to decipher). All other SMS apps are in plain text. In my view earlier versions of Textsecure are indeed secure. Starting from version 2.X, we no longer know that considering all the facts I mentioned in the OP.
You should really get your facts straight. Twitter bought Whisper Systems in 2011, mainly to get Moxie and the other Whisper Systems folks to work for them.
Moxie went on to lead Twitters security team. Twitter allowed them a month or so after they aquired Whisper Systems to open source their apps TextSecure and RedPhone. In January 2013 Moxie left Twitter and started Open Whisper Systems with a few others. They took the newly open sourced apps and developed them further.
This is also covered in their FAQ.
You can see all of their code on GitHub.
And if you don't have GAPPS installed, you will simply get a message that you won't be able to use push messages and that's it. Several friends of mine use it for SMS only, with Xprivacy restricting the internet access. It doesn't crash or anything.
If you experience this, you may either have a problem with your build or it's a bug specific to your device/Android version.
Moxie also wrote exactly why he doesn't want TextSecure to be released via F-Droid: for security reasons. They use central signing, which may very well compromise the update channel.
The whole discussion can be found in the most infamous thread in their GitHub: #127
lindworm said:
You should really get your facts straight. Twitter bought Whisper Systems in 2011, mainly to get Moxie and the other Whisper Systems folks to work for them.
Moxie went on to lead Twitters security team. Twitter allowed them a month or so after they aquired Whisper Systems to open source their apps TextSecure and RedPhone. In January 2013 Moxie left Twitter and started Open Whisper Systems with a few others. They took the newly open sourced apps and developed them further.
This is also covered ir FAQ.
You can see all of their code on GitHub.
And if you don't have GAPPS installed, you will simply get a message that you won't be able to use push messages and that's it. Several friends of mine use it for SMS only, with Xprivacy restricting the internet access. It doesn't crash or anything.
If you experience this, you may either have a problem with your build or it's a bug specific to your device/Android version.
Moxie also wrote exactly why he doesn't want TextSecure to be released via F-Droid: for security reasons. They use central signing, which may very well compromise the update channel.
The whole discussion can be found in the most infamous thread in their GitHub: #127
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which fact did I not get straight? You can't get the app anywhere other than from Googleplay and for Googleplay you need GSF, which records your every keystroke. And by the way, try to restrict getnetworkinfo in internet settings in Xprivacy and the app will crash as soon as you try to open a conversation (checked on several devices). And why was it necessary to prevent users from generating new identity key? Why not have an app available on Whisper's github, as many devs do. And by the way, I asked the same questions on github and f-droid threads and in response got a suggestion to build an equivalent of Google's GCM, so then Moxie would stop using Google.
optimumpro said:
Which fact did I not get straight? You can't get the app anywhere other than from Googleplay and for Googleplay you need GSF, which records your every keystroke. And by the way, try to restrict getnetworkinfo in internet settings in Xprivacy and the app will crash as soon as you try to open a conversation (checked on several devices). And why was it necessary to prevent users from generating new identity key? Why not have an app available on Whisper's github, as many devs do. And by the way, I asked the same questions on github and f-droid threads and in response got a suggestion to build an equivalent of Google's GCM, so then Moxie would stop using Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not even trying to learn/understand why things are done the way they are done, but instead chose to blast an open source project by a security expert who has spoken at defcon various times and who is on a national security list and gets severely hassled by the TSA every time he tries to travel because of his involvement with secure communication projects.
You don't show the slightest form of objectiveness either. The truth content of what you are writing varies between "flat out wrong" and "there is a reason for how they do it that way, which you either didn't care to research or willingly ignored".
1. You can sideload the apk either from http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ or any of the dozens of sites that mirror packages from the app store.
They do not provide apks because it is a security risk: there is no automated upgrade channel from where a user can get a new version which may fix serious security flaws.
Everybody who is able to compile from source however should understand the importance of updating regularly and can do so on his/her own.
Moxie stated all of that in the github ticket I linked to.
2. GSF doesn't record your keystrokes.
3. If you had bothered to look it up, getNetworkInfo returns if a certain interface (like wifi) is used for internet.
This leaks no interesting information whatsoever. And it especially doesn't mean that TextSecure doesn't work without internet, because this permission does not give an app internet access. Xprivacy actually expects this behaviour by apps, that's why those fields are by default not restricted even if you restrict internet access of an app.
The program crashes without this, because it expects to get a needed value returned, which you chose to block. This is not something they willingly built in, to stop you from using it without Google Play.
If you can't manage the complexity of the permissions, you should use a simple firewall like AFwall+ to restrict internet access.
4. This was probably removed because it doesn't add any significant security and adds clutter to the user interface, because average users have no idea what it's for. The identity keys you are talking about are long term identity keys. TextSecure uses different keys in every message and actually uses the most secure protocol I know of. It has excellent forward secrecy, future secrecy and deniability. More so than OTR, which it is derived from.
You can learn more about that in their blog:
https://whispersystems.org/blog/simplifying-otr-deniability/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/asynchronous-security/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/
5. You asked them to not use the only free world wide push network that has contracts with all major providers to not kill idle TCP connections.
Moxie always answered that they would love to use something else, but none exists. And that they don't have the resources to build a push network themselves.
This is all in the comments to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ and on ycombinator:
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfxhm?context=3
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfrv0?context=3
They are however working on using emails as identifiers and websockets as an alternative to GCM. Websockets are already implemented on the server side and people are working on the client side.
Right now you can use encrypted SMS without GCM, no problem at all. If you want to use it over the internet, you can help to speed up the websocket development:
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/1000
lindworm said:
You are not even trying to learn/understand why things are done the way they are done, but instead chose to blast an open source project by a security expert who has spoken at defcon various times and who is on a national security list and gets severely hassled by the TSA every time he tries to travel because of his involvement with secure communication projects.
You don't show the slightest form of objectiveness either. The truth content of what you are writing varies between "flat out wrong" and "there is a reason for how they do it that way, which you either didn't care to research or willingly ignored".
1. You can sideload the apk either from http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ or any of the dozens of sites that mirror packages from the app store.
They do not provide apks because it is a security risk: there is no automated upgrade channel from where a user can get a new version which may fix serious security flaws.
Everybody who is able to compile from source however should understand the importance of updating regularly and can do so on his/her own.
Moxie stated all of that in the github ticket I linked to.
2. GSF doesn't record your keystrokes.
3. If you had bothered to look it up, getNetworkInfo returns if a certain interface (like wifi) is used for internet.
This leaks no interesting information whatsoever. And it especially doesn't mean that TextSecure doesn't work without internet, because this permission does not give an app internet access. Xprivacy actually expects this behaviour by apps, that's why those fields are by default not restricted even if you restrict internet access of an app.
The program crashes without this, because it expects to get a needed value returned, which you chose to block. This is not something they willingly built in, to stop you from using it without Google Play.
If you can't manage the complexity of the permissions, you should use a simple firewall like AFwall+ to restrict internet access.
4. This was probably removed because it doesn't add any significant security and adds clutter to the user interface, because average users have no idea what it's for. The identity keys you are talking about are long term identity keys. TextSecure uses different keys in every message and actually uses the most secure protocol I know of. It has excellent forward secrecy, future secrecy and deniability. More so than OTR, which it is derived from.
You can learn more about that in their blog:
https://whispersystems.org/blog/simplifying-otr-deniability/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/asynchronous-security/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/
5. You asked them to not use the only free world wide push network that has contracts with all major providers to not kill idle TCP connections.
Moxie always answered that they would love to use something else, but none exists. And that they don't have the resources to build a push network themselves.
This is all in the comments to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ and on ycombinator:
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfxhm?context=3
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfrv0?context=3
They are however working on using emails as identifiers and websockets as an alternative to GCM. Websockets are already implemented on the server side and people are working on the client side.
Right now you can use encrypted SMS without GCM, no problem at all. If you want to use it over the internet, you can help to speed up the websocket development:
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/1000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your original statement was that I got my facts wrong. Since you have not cited any instance where I came up with a wrong fact, I will address your opinions.
Number one: you say GSF does not record keystrokes. How do you know? Have you seen the source (which is closed)? If you did, you work for Google and then everything you say is propaganda that has zero factual value. If you don't, then you are just speculating. You pick whichever is worse. If you use Google proprietary blobs, your device is totally open and there is no security measure/app on earth that is effective against this. That GSF phones home at regular intervals and transmits data there is a known fact. You can use encryption from Mars and yet it won't work because raw data (before encryption) is open to Google. As another user noted, having GSF and other closed source apps is like having a lock installed on your house door and not knowing who has access to it besides you.
Number two: inability to generate new identity key: It was there for a reason, the same way PGP or GPG keys have the ability to be limited in time, revoked or regenerated. It is a good security standard and removing it represents weakening. Clutter? LOL. A regular user wouldn't even be able to find it. Certainly, it does not pop up anywhere, one has to find it.
Number three: Sideload or compiling: a regular user will do neither, he/she will simply download the app from the market, which means he has to have Google blobs. Or you are suggesting that users should download the app from the market and then remove GSF and other Googleapps? LOL again.
As I said earlier, Moxie's argument that allowing third party apps on your device is a greater security risk than having closed source blobs is wrong and grand BS (especially coming from someone who is considered a security expert). It is security through obscurity, which is no security at all. The value of his open source project is completely defeated by having closed source blobs by a known private branch of known three letter agencies.
Now, these are facts. Let's get to opinions. I think that this deliberate weakening of security (again coming from a security expert) is a strong indication that development and/or developer has been compromised. And that is why I recommend to stay away from this app. But that is just my opinion, which is nonetheless based on facts.
optimumpro said:
Your original statement was that I got my facts wrong. Since you have not cited any instance where I came up with a wrong fact, I will address your opinions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you even read what I write?
If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I explained he does now work there any more.
You seem to have noticed that too:
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you kidding me? How the flying **** did you get to this conclusion? The company that was bought by twitter was Whisper Systems.
They are publishing the new source under Open Whisper Systems. (none of those was ever called Whisper)
See the difference? They also state this here: http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/articles/1474591-is-textsecure-owned-by-twitter-
And here is some more fresh evidence. Today I posted this info on Cyanogen site related to Textsecure Push for CM.
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/whis...ng-integration
The site says it is neither censored no monitored. Within 5 minutes, the post has disappeared... . So, stay away from this app as the development has been compromised. In my view, of course...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are saying CyanogenMod is part of this grand conspiracy of yours? Come on...
GSF, which records your every keystroke.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Number one: you say GSF does not record keystrokes. How do you know? Have you seen the source (which is closed)? If you did, you work for Google and then everything you say is propaganda that has zero factual value. If you don't, then you are just speculating. You pick whichever is worse. If you use Google proprietary blobs, your device is totally open and there is no security measure/app on earth that is effective against this. That GSF phones home at regular intervals and transmits data there is a known fact. You can use encryption from Mars and yet it won't work because raw data (before encryption) is open to Google. As another user noted, having GSF and other closed source apps is like having a lock installed on your house door and not knowing who has access to it besides you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a binary blob and it sends data to google, but you have no proof whatsoever if it records keystrokes. You can know if you want to tough. Decompile it and analyze it. I don't like binary blobs, but you can't just say they do something without having any proof. I may not be able to guarantee that they don't do something, because I have not personally decompiled and analyzed every bit of it, but until you have and have proof that it does do something you can't just claim it does.
Number two: inability to generate new identity key: It was there for a reason, the same way PGP or GPG keys have the ability to be limited in time, revoked or regenerated. It is a good security standard and removing it represents weakening. Clutter? LOL. A regular user wouldn't even be able to find it. Certainly, it does not pop up anywhere, one has to find it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not something the average user should have access to, for several reasons. The TextSecure V2 protocol is NOT comparable with PGP/GPG because it has forward secrecy and deniability. The keys that are actually used to encrypt a message are not static as with PGP.
They are derived from the original keys and are changed with every message. No need to change them after X days/months/years.
Even if one key is intercepted, you would only be able to decrypt one message and not every message as it is the case with PGP.
If you get a new key, all your contacts get alerts that your key changed and that somebody may be listening in. That's not something the average user should be exposed to. If you think for whatever reason that you really want to do this, back up your conversations, uninstall TextSecure, install it again, import the backup and you have your new key.
Number three: Sideload or compiling: a regular user will do neither, he/she will simply download the app from the market, which means he has to have Google blobs. Or you are suggesting that users should download the app from the market and then remove GSF and other Googleapps? LOL again.
As I said earlier, Moxie's argument that allowing third party apps on your device is a greater security risk than having closed source blobs is wrong and grand BS (especially coming from someone who is considered a security expert). It is security through obscurity, which is no security at all. The value of his open source project is completely defeated by having closed source blobs by a known private branch of known three letter agencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every average user has the google blobs, because they are preinstalled on nearly every phone and it's nearly unusable without them. This app is supposed to make encryption available to the masses.
Google may be undermined by your beloved three letter agencies, but it's not one of them. This is not to hide from them.
You have your threat model wrong.
No app alone can ever protect you from those agencies. They have hundreds of 0days for every platform and will simply own your Android, open source or not.
And this is not what TextSecure tries to do. They protect the content of every conversation with extremely strong encryption, no matter what the transport is. This does protect you from dragnet surveillance. But they can not protect you from someone who targets you and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands or millions to break into your operating systems.
If the NSA really wants you they get you, period. But TextSecure protects you from theives, cyber criminals and nearly everybody else who wants to read your messages.
You say you think the encrypted SMS mode was safe? With this your provider (and thus your government and every agency that wants it) has all the metadata. Who sent something to whom etc.
Google on the other hand has actually LESS meta data, because your phone sends the message to the TextSecure server, which relays the message to GCM. GCM then delivers the message. Because everything is encrypted none of the servers get contact data. But google only gets the receiver, not the sender. Your provider gets everything.
A global passive adversary may still do time corellation attacks, by listening who sends something when and who receives something at this time. After some sessions it's pretty clear who is talking to whom. It doesn't matter if Google is evil or not in this case. They get the metadata if they want to.
If you want protection against something like this take a look at pond, or meet i person: https://github.com/agl/pond
Now, these are facts. Let's get to opinions. I think that this deliberate weakening of security (again coming from a security expert) is a strong indication that development and/or developer has been compromised. And that is why I recommend to stay away from this app. But that is just my opinion, which is nonetheless based on facts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I explained there is no weakening whatsoever. Even if you consider google the adversary, they get less meta data than your SMS provider.
You can use this exactly as before without the google blobs if you want to.
They are actively working on a way to get away from the play store and GCM by building their own distribution method (which is finished, but not yet released, see #127 in their github) and implementing Websockets (server works, client is on the way).
Before you start slamming something you should really understand how it works, or ask if you understood it correctly.
lindworm said:
Do you even read what I write?
As I explained he does now work there any more.
You seem to have noticed that too:
Are you kidding me? How the flying **** did you get to this conclusion? The company that was bought by twitter was Whisper Systems.
They are publishing the new source under Open Whisper Systems. (none of those was ever called Whisper)
See the difference? They also state this here: http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/articles/1474591-is-textsecure-owned-by-twitter-
So you are saying CyanogenMod is part of this grand conspiracy of yours? Come on...
It's a binary blob and it sends data to google, but you have no proof whatsoever if it records keystrokes. You can know if you want to tough. Decompile it and analyze it. I don't like binary blobs, but you can't just say they do something without having any proof. I may not be able to guarantee that they don't do something, because I have not personally decompiled and analyzed every bit of it, but until you have and have proof that it does do something you can't just claim it does.
It is not something the average user should have access to, for several reasons. The TextSecure V2 protocol is NOT comparable with PGP/GPG because it has forward secrecy and deniability. The keys that are actually used to encrypt a message are not static as with PGP.
They are derived from the original keys and are changed with every message. No need to change them after X days/months/years.
Even if one key is intercepted, you would only be able to decrypt one message and not every message as it is the case with PGP.
If you get a new key, all your contacts get alerts that your key changed and that somebody may be listening in. That's not something the average user should be exposed to. If you think for whatever reason that you really want to do this, back up your conversations, uninstall TextSecure, install it again, import the backup and you have your new key.
Every average user has the google blobs, because they are preinstalled on nearly every phone and it's nearly unusable without them. This app is supposed to make encryption available to the masses.
Google may be undermined by your beloved three letter agencies, but it's not one of them. This is not to hide from them.
You have your threat model wrong.
No app alone can ever protect you from those agencies. They have hundreds of 0days for every platform and will simply own your Android, open source or not.
And this is not what TextSecure tries to do. They protect the content of every conversation with extremely strong encryption, no matter what the transport is. This does protect you from dragnet surveillance. But they can not protect you from someone who targets you and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands or millions to break into your operating systems.
If the NSA really wants you they get you, period. But TextSecure protects you from theives, cyber criminals and nearly everybody else who wants to read your messages.
You say you think the encrypted SMS mode was safe? With this your provider (and thus your government and every agency that wants it) has all the metadata. Who sent something to whom etc.
Google on the other hand has actually LESS meta data, because your phone sends the message to the TextSecure server, which relays the message to GCM. GCM then delivers the message. Because everything is encrypted none of the servers get contact data. But google only gets the receiver, not the sender. Your provider gets everything.
A global passive adversary may still do time corellation attacks, by listening who sends something when and who receives something at this time. After some sessions it's pretty clear who is talking to whom. It doesn't matter if Google is evil or not in this case. They get the metadata if they want to.
If you want protection against something like this take a look at pond, or meet i person: https://github.com/agl/pond
As I explained there is no weakening whatsoever. Even if you consider google the adversary, they get less meta data than your SMS provider.
You can use this exactly as before without the google blobs if you want to.
They are actively working on a way to get away from the play store and GCM by building their own distribution method (which is finished, but not yet released, see #127 in their github) and implementing Websockets (server works, client is on the way).
Before you start slamming something you should really understand how it works, or ask if you understood it correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Decompile GSF"
You are kidding. Aren't you? If one can examine closed source the same way as open one, then all problems would be solved. And by the way, there would be no point in having proprietary software. Would it? Of course Java is easier to reverse engineer, but want to try Oracle's java?
"Google" Google has root access to your device: It can pull/install any application without you noticing it. They can install another version of TextSecure with backdoors. They can do whatever they want or told to. So, if you have Google, there is no point in any security at all. And when a developer forces users to have Google for his app to work, that's no security at all.
Cyanogenmode/Conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. The US has a law that requires providers to have back doors in their software/hardware for law enforcement, and there are wild claims (by those who know (and don't) what they are talking about) of TextSecure as "weapon" against this kind of surveillance. And that is pure bull. All that the app can provide is the false sense of security, while in reality making users more transparent to surveillance.
Phone service providers vs. internet: when you use Textsecure as a pure sms app, your provider gets gibberish, but they have no way of knowing what you are using. With GCM/GSF/Googleplay, they know exactly what you are doing, as you are marked as using this particular app. So, Moxie is making life of "survaillors" much easier.
Thanks for telling me to uninstall the app if I want to generate new key. So, if I do it this way, you think my contacts won't receive a message that my key has changed?
Here is how I began to suspect foul play: First I noticed the app wanted access to the internet, then I discovered that I can no longer generate a new key, then I went to read about F-droid/Whisper problems. Then I read that he wants the app be available through Google only, because he cares about security and does not want users to allow third party apps (BS). Then I read about feds harassment. You think the 3 letter agencies wouldn't like to have him?
In my view, Moxie's arguments no longer make sense. And by the way, when he is against the wall, he tells you to create a world wide push service - alternative to GCM. LOL.
For me that's enough to stay away from the app. Others will decide accordingly...
Does anybody work on an alternativ push service in order to replace hard requirement on Google services for TextSecure, Redphone and lots of other useful apps?
I understand that GAPPS are needed to run textsecure.
Is it possible/ has anyone succeed to get it to run with the no GAPPS apps such as the blank store etc or is the app relying too much on google infrastructure?
i can use textsecure sms without internet. besides registering with push is not mandatory at all so the crash you've experienced must be a bug in the version of textsecure you're using. also why compare it to pgp/gpg? textsecure uses otr with improvements to deniability and forward secrecy. also textsecure supports mms (which uses internet).
if you're really that paranoid, avoid android at all and stop spreading FUD claiming it to be fact. i don't find the statement factual at all. it lacks any evidence (show us the code with the backdoor first).
and also avoid openguardian project too as they conspire with textsecure since they are recommending it.
and by the way, whisper and openwhisper are different.
It really is ashamed when misinformed people comment on things they do not have enough information to intelligently speak about. Especially when it discourages people from using an application that is one of the only current means of communicating over SMS in a secure manner. Is it perfect? Certainly not... Security and encryption are never perfect, and there will always be flaws to be found, but to insist that someone such as Moxie Marlinspike is somehow working against the security researcher community in some undercover role as an agent of the government or some corrupt company is really insulting. If you have some absolute proof, or even a reasonable solid suspicion, please share it, but otherwise do not taint these incredible people with false accusations. Learn a bit about encryption, reverse engineering, and packet inspection, and then come back and give an intelligent analysis of your findings of the application you suspect to be playing some nefarious role. Until then, your accusations are completely unfounded and damaging to the community as a whole. There are many people who have worked hard to make this product a reality, and I believe they should be praised for their efforts. Obviously these are my own opinions, and you are free to dismiss them outright as you have done to others in previous posts. In addition, I realize I am not an active member of the xda community, but I am an active member of the security/reverse engineering community. My job and nearly all of my free time is spent reverse engineering software and I see no basis for your accusations.
Here is more update on Textsecure: there was a major vulnerability found last October-November. And Moxie's response (not surprisingly) - fixing "feels pretty cumbersome" and "I dunno."
Also, Open Whisper is now accepted into the family of such a bastion of privacy, as Facebook (kids love it, NSA approves). So, If you had any doubt about this app before, now you can sleep well at night (sarcasm).
https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/001029.html
https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/001030.html
To those who like to attack the messenger ( I call them Google thugs or pacifier babies). One says decompile GSF, the other - false accusations and absolute proof?! Wake up and get the pacifier out of your mouth. There is no such thing in real life. I give you the dots, you can't connect them with the pacifier in your mouth.
Here is some more damning evidence that Textsecure is a totally compromised project no longer to be trusted: during 2013-2014 Open Whisper Systems received over $1.3 mln from BBG, which is an arm of US Government and its 3-letter-agencies.
http://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/
So, Moxie, it appears, has turned from someone who was harrased by TSA in airports (presumably for a failure to cooperate with the government) to a receipient of major funds from the same government. I am not even talking about him getting a once in a life-time project to work on "securing" Facebook's What's up application. Pitty and shame...
Replacement for Textsecure
Here is a pure sms app, which replaces compromised Textsecure, as well as stock messaging. There is no over the internet messaging, no google binaries and no Google Services Framewor all closed sourse. In addition, starting from version 2.7, textsecure no longer encrypts SMS. Pitty.
Here is the latest version: http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/sms-secure-aes-256-t3065165
I tried a number of things to get the Google dialer without success.
For now work with kk dialer, has anyone any idea how to get rid the TrueCaller?
Just don't use TrueCaller?
r25txe said:
Just don't use TrueCaller?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for nothing .
I have said that I have kk dialer, to install Google dialer am looking.
Open up the dialler and go to settings, the three dots, The top option is Truecaller you can turn it off
nikoslikos said:
Thanks for nothing .
I have said that I have kk dialer, to install Google dialer am looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I gave you the advice you wanted about Truecaller. As the previous poster stated, you can disable it, or, as I advised, simply not use it. Getting offended because someone took the time out to respond is terrible manners.
You may need to be rooted to remove it and we do not know if you are rooted. We don't know if you are running a Lollipop or Marshamallow ROM either. You have not helped us to help you by not giving us your platform information.
Have you tried to install the Google Dialer from the modular GApps thread?
Be warned that they are targeted to 32bit ROMs. Do a backup!
You could also try CM Next dialer from CM C-Apps package. This also includes Truecaller, but it is trivial to disable it.
I am rooted and am on stock TOS208G with trucaller uninstalled. I replaced with caller ID & call recorder app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.callapp.contacts that I prefer.
I have found the phone does not display whose calling via contacts only by the true caller ap. Have I installed something in error or got a setting wrong please?
Trucaller help in many ways
r25txe said:
Just don't use TrueCaller?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It helps in many way to find out spam caller, customer care calls,
and know the number location carrier etc etc
thunderbolt9148 said:
It helps in many way to find out spam caller, customer care calls,
and know the number location carrier etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Understood, but the poster doesn't want to use it.
r25txe said:
Understood, but the poster doesn't want to use it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I have found, there is no caller id system on the phone without having one of the various true caller id apps installed.
image45 said:
From what I have found, there is no caller id system on the phone without having one of the various true caller id apps installed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Caller ID is a stock feature of any basic dialer out there (Google/AOSP etc), it should not be dependent on True Caller.
I think True Caller is still on my Swift, so I will test this later.
Sent from my P00A using XDA Labs
r25txe said:
Caller ID is a stock feature of any basic dialer out there (Google/AOSP etc), it should not be dependent on True Caller.
I think True Caller is still on my Swift, so I will test this later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uninstall true caller id and see for yourself then, you don't have to trust the contents of members post if you so choose.
image45 said:
Uninstall true caller id and see for yourself then, you don't have to trust the contents of members post if you so choose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have TrueCaller on my device afterall. The dialer is the stock Android dialer and my caller ID works without issues.
What's the packagename for TrueCaller?
Sent from my P00A using XDA Labs
I wonder if I can restart this discussion here -- I want to turn off TrueCaller, but in Google Play it says it's a System App and it does not appear at all under any name in the Settings - Apps listing (no matter whether showing or hiding system apps). What other options do I have?
I'm on Android 7.1.2. My TrueCaller has no options to either turn it off or to turn off the notifications it brings up (which is my main reason for wanting to get rid of it: for something that's blocking spam, it spams me far too much with stuff that I don't want it to do).
r25txe said:
Caller ID is a stock feature of any basic dialer out there (Google/AOSP etc), it should not be dependent on True Caller.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This should indeed be the case. Unfortunately, for us Swift (1st gen) users at least, this is now broken.
When Wileyfox migrated from CyanogenMod to Android they broke a few things along the way as well as doing a deal with the Devil aka Truecaller.
Unless your device is Truecaller enabled then caller ID simply will not work. We've tested at least two dozen dialers and contact managers (all from Google Play) and not one of them works with the Swift in its current firmware state. We even installed the APK of the Google Phone dialer (provided by WF themselves and which according to Google Play is incompatible anyway) and even this does not work.
Besides, how many dialers does a mobile ecosystem need anyway? One has to ask themselves why there are so many and why they nearly always require OTA registration to do what they offer....
But that's another matter altogether.
There are other issues too such as SMS alerts going off at full volume in the earpiece during an active voicecall; or the persistence of 'charge mode' when connecting via USB, even though MTP has been set in the developer options or from the status pull-down.
One thing it tells us is that the Swift cannot be running stock Android - otherwise these problems just would not happen. If not that, then it is that WF don't have a proper working build process or test protocol.
Either way, the Swift is damaged goods now and it might seem WF are prepared to kick it into the kerb. Probably the best option now is to try Lineage, assuming owners are savvy and even want to.
On the other hand we could band together to oblige WF to get an update released. We have been trying for months to get their attention, both before and since their buyout by STK. For those who are minded to, perhaps you would like to add your support by liking the following Facebook post:-
https://www.facebook.com/officialwileyfox/posts/1872330073078309
If enough give it the thumbs up then WF may be moved to respond. Please support this initiative if you can.
Thanks.
gktscrk said:
I wonder if I can restart this discussion here -- I want to turn off TrueCaller, but in Google Play it says it's a System App and it does not appear at all under any name in the Settings - Apps listing (no matter whether showing or hiding system apps). What other options do I have?
I'm on Android 7.1.2. My TrueCaller has no options to either turn it off or to turn off the notifications it brings up (which is my main reason for wanting to get rid of it: for something that's blocking spam, it spams me far too much with stuff that I don't want it to do).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We think we have found a solution:-
It ought to be possible to disable Truecaller but not remove it entirely unless your phone is rooted and have other management tools. We have managed this is on our own device which is totally stock and never been tinkered with (7.1.2 Nougat, Build No: TOS257G – N2G48B).
Secondly, installing another dialler from Google Play or via APK will work but it's almost 100% likely that a further setting will need to be made: setting as the default phone app.
This can be done in two ways:-
i) Settings->Apps->Configure Apps (Gear icon in top bar).
ii) From the app drawer, drag the dialler app icon to the "App Info" drop zone at the top of the screen. Scroll down to the setting that says "Phone App" - it should be yes or no.
See attached screenshots for reference.
It seems to us that many owners think their Swift can't be used with any dialler other than Truecaller, when in fact they can; the mistake is on the part of the firmware which won't recognise another dialler by default and hence breaks the contact ID display when incoming calls are received (not to be confused with caller ID).
Hopefully this serves as a solution. :good: