this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026
410 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

89506 readers
3182 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/71321898

Netzpoltik details that police are able to gain access in this way either through physical access to someone’s phone or by intercepting verification codes via a state-sanctioned phishing attack or intercepting SMS messages via telephone surveillance

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 2 points 1 month ago

I might be mistaken but I don’t think Signal uses SMS alone to gain access to a chat so the attack vector for the Signal part based on what the article is saying is that the police are just getting access to a device that’s already authorised (and has the keys) then just adding in another device which they control. This sounds like Signal functioning as expected. The article does refer to police not wanting to give away too many details to maybe there’s something that hasn’t been disclosed, but the cited methods (assuming SMS is off the table for Signal) sound like normal behaviour.