As I wrote in a comment[1] in their other attention-seeking post[2], they keep talking about "risks" and "vulnerability".<p>There's no exploit or vulnerability here (despite their use of the "PoC" and "responsible disclosure" terms that apply to such things). The fact that you can detect a Signal proxy as a Signal proxy isn't a vulnerability; if it gets censored you're no worse off than you were if that proxy didn't exist: the main Signal servers are censored in Iran already. Indeed, this is the Signal circumvention proxy working precisely as designed.<p>As I understand it, these people got banned from the Signal forum for spreading this FUD there, too. Predictably, they started accusing Signal of some coverup. They managed to get an interview to further publicize their FUD, but eventually reason prevailed and that was pulled by the author, too.<p>Sometimes I really wonder the motives and identities behind the people causing such massive and unnecessary drama and fear in the community surrounding the only mainstream, reliable, end-to-end encrypted messenger out there. iMessage and WhatsApp both got their end-to-end crypto backdoored en masse via plaintext backup/escrow systems, but Signal remains generally safe and secure (provided general endpoint security practices are followed). These sorts of FUD attacks make me wonder about why they're happening, and the motives and incentives of the people causing them.<p>One of the people harassing Moxie about it on Twitter has <50 followers and an account that's only ~2 years old, with only a handful of posts in that time. My money's on sockpupppets.<p>1: <a href="https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/60#issuecomment-775179822" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/60#issuecomment-775...</a><p>2: <a href="https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/60" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/60</a>