Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • April 23, 2026 5:36 PM

@ ALL,

Apparently Signal asked Apple to fix the issue…

And there is an update or two coming down the pipeline,

https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/22/apple-fixes-bug-that-cops-used-to-extract-deleted-chat-messages-from-iphones/

@ Chris R,

With regards your comment of,

“secure messaging services exist to serve a more general audience that in practice will not jump through what you’re describing as an “Energy Gap” process to communicate with any degree of security; all that’ll be achieved by that is making any degree of secure messaging unattainable.”

Very secure messaging has followed the “energy gap” principle between the “Communications End Point” and the “Security End Point” for longer than even very primitive computers have existed.

Prior to the use of computers maintaining an “energy gap” was trivial thus a high degree of security was easily possible. Later named by Claude Shannon (1949) as “Perfect Secrecy” it was not just possible, but easily achieved.

Thus became the “gold standard” by which all other systems were measured. Importantly it was also easily obtained and during WWII used for the protection of SOE and other “behind the lines” operators,

“Shannon didn’t just invent a new code; he established the mathematical laws that govern all codes. He gave us a way to measure security, defined what “unbreakable” truly means, and laid the foundation for the secure communication we rely on for everything from online banking to private messaging.

…

The Holy Grail: Defining Perfect Secrecy

The cornerstone of Shannon’s work is a concept called perfect secrecy. It’s the ultimate standard for security a system so strong that the encrypted message gives an attacker zero new information about the original message. Even with infinite computing power, the attacker is no closer to guessing the message than they were before.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-perfect-secrecy-guide-claude-shannons-theory-encryption-qhvkc

As it is trivial to obtain such levels of security, one has to wonder why you think,

“Signal, and other secure messaging services, exist on a continuum of security; they address many of the threats to user privacy that might exist, but are not and cannot be perfect. Your argument seems to suggest that unless perfection can be achieved, it only makes sense to simply not try and I just flat out reject that claim.”

As I have said, repeatedly “perfect security” can be trivially obtained with just a “pencil, paper and match”. So your “Strawman Argument” of,

“unless perfection can be achieved”

Is an invented nonsense by you.

So people should ask why do you think that “a continuum of security” should be accepted?

“Just because computers are used”

It is that type of thinking that makes “insecure standard” by practice. Which has been the aim of “Authoritarian Guard Labour” working in right wing if not fascist environments since the 1970’s.

Which begs the second question,

“Why do you want to be an apologist for such people as the current US Executive administration and appointed leaders of the US DOJ, FBI, ICE and worse”?

When informing people how to avoid such is “trivially possible”?

Let’s be generous and say,

“Maybe you are not as informed as you think you are…”