Signal is widely regarded by security professionals as one of the most secure messaging applications available today. However, its recent use by senior Trump officials for planning military operations in Yemen has sparked some serious concerns. It was never designed to be the primary choice for such sensitive communications.
So, what sets Signal apart from other messaging apps, and why does its utilization by top officials raise eyebrows?
Understanding End-to-End Encryption
End-to-end encryption (E2EE) ensures that messages sent via the app are scrambled while in transit, meaning only the intended recipient can decipher them. This principle underlies Signal’s operation.
While Signal isn’t the only messaging service employing E2EE, it distinguishes itself by being governed by a non-profit organization, the Signal Foundation, rather than a large tech corporation driven by profits. This independence fosters greater trust among users who prioritize privacy.
In addition to its core encryption features, Signal goes a step further than WhatsApp by rendering metadata—such as delivery timestamps and recipient information—entirely invisible, even to Signal itself. In contrast, WhatsApp shares users’ information with its parent company, Meta, and other third parties, including phone numbers and device information.
Because of its unwavering commitment to privacy and security, Signal has become the preferred messaging platform for those who prioritize confidential communications—such as security personnel, journalists, and their sources.
Who Owns Signal?
Established in 2012, Signal is operated by the Mountain View, California-based Signal Foundation. Its history is intertwined with that of WhatsApp; the app was co-founded by cryptographer Moxie Marlinspike, who received initial funding of $50 million from WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton.
Although both Signal and WhatsApp derive from the same underlying protocol developed by Marlinspike, Signal emphasizes its independence. As per its website, “We’re not tied to any major tech companies, and we can never be acquired by one either.” The organization primarily relies on grants and donations for its development.
Signal’s CEO, Meredith Whittaker—who has a distinguished background at Google—is known for being a vocal advocate against business models that exploit personal data.
Evaluating Signal’s Security
Michael Daniel, a former White House cybersecurity coordinator during the Obama administration and current head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, remarks, “Signal is a very solid platform because of the way that it operates, frequently updates, and utilizes end-to-end encryption.” However, he emphasizes, “it was never built or intended to be used for discussing military plans.”
According to Daniel, “the real vulnerability… is not so much the app itself, but everything that goes on around it.” He points out that high-level officials should have access to communications teams equipped to use appropriate secure methods.
Interestingly, a recent memo from the Pentagon warned its staff against using Signal due to perceived threats from Russian hackers, who are exploiting the app’s device linking feature to potentially monitor conversations.
Under normal circumstances, Daniel suggests that it wouldn’t have been overly complicated for officials to resort to more secure protocols. He adds that if proper technology were employed, outside interference would have been essentially impossible.
Matthew Green, a cryptography professor at Johns Hopkins University and contributor to Signal’s development, remarked on Bluesky, “by asking it to step up to ‘military grade’ communications, Signal is being asked to do a lot!” He cautioned that the platform, which saw a surge in downloads after recent events, might become a target simply because it is now seen as the trusted encrypted messenger.
“As the only encrypted messenger people seem to ‘really’ trust, Signal is going to end up being a target for too many people,” he warned.
Ultimately, while Signal’s secure messaging capability is impressive, its unexpected use in sensitive contexts raises significant questions about operational security and appropriate communication protocols.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
