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.

  • 9bananas@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.