Latest news with #SignalMessenger
The National
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Signals crossed: How Signal Messenger thrived as support for Mike Waltz took a dive
Anger over US military plans being disclosed to a journalist on a Signal Messenger group chat proved too much for US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz to survive, but the app at the centre of his reported downfall has largely been helped by the scandal. As of Thursday, Signal sits comfortably with a top 15 ranking in Apple's iOS app store in the social networking category. Notable for an app that rarely, if ever, advertises. This comes weeks after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, inadvertently learnt specifics about US plans for attacks on Houthi targets after he was added to a Signal chat. Mr Goldberg said he was mistakenly added to 'Houthi PC small group' within the Signal app, which often promotes its independent status and emphasises its encryption and security features. According to Appfigures, an app intelligence and analytics company, shortly after the Signal story broke, app downloads for the messaging platform rose by 26 per cent. 'The news wasn't great or relevant to the app yet it resulted in Signal getting 350,000 more downloads than what was expected,' read a press release from Appfigures, which also said that the app's popularity in Yemen, the country at the centre of the attacks discussed on the platform, briefly rose too. In the days following the scandal, military officials, members of Congress and technology security experts expressed shock and dismay by the incident for which Mr Waltz ultimately took responsibility. Despite the apology from Mr Waltz, a former Florida congressman, criticisms remained, and an investigation by the US Inspector General got under way to determine the ramifications of Trump administration officials' use of Signal. On Signal's official message board, debate and deliberation about what the potential fallout meant for the platform continued for weeks after the story first broke. 'Do you think this US scandal will benefit Signal in terms of adoption of the app or cast it in a bad light?' asked one of message board members. 'I think it is free advertising and therefore good for Signal Messenger,' wrote another poster to the Signal message board. 'It is a good reminder that … good apps cannot protect from bad users.' The scandal and fears of a possible compromise of national security became so great that Signal warned of 'misinfo flying around' about the messaging app. 'Signal remains the gold standard for private, secure communications,' the company wrote on X, hitting back against various reports suggesting the app could be vulnerable due to phishing attempts. 'Phishing isn't new, and it's not a flaw in our encryption or any of Signal's underlying technology. Phishing attacks are a constant threat for popular apps and websites.' Signal boasts 'state of the art, end-to-end encryption', but experts have since warned that such features matter little if the app's users are careless. 'Often the Defence Department will urge against using these apps for secure communication because humans will be humans and they can't be trusted to use it correctly,' Robert Graham, chief executive of Atlanta-based cyber security company Errata Security, told The National. 'That was verified by this whole story – a journalist was accidentally added to the group.' But some, like Signal's founder Moxie Marlinspike, poked fun at what many saw as a very serious incident. 'There are so many great reasons to be on Signal. Now including the opportunity for the Vice President of the United States of America to randomly add you to a group chat for co-ordination of sensitive military operations,' he posted on X in March. 'Don't sleep on this opportunity.' As of 2024, before the controversy erupted, estimates showed Signal had some 70 million monthly active users. The leader, WhatsApp, has about 2 billion.
Forbes
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
What Everyone Has Missed About The Trump Administration Signal Scandal
When encrypted chats become government backchannels, transparency becomes the real casualty. Recent events seem more like a Silicon Valley satire than a serious governance failure. By now, you're probably aware that high-ranking Trump administration officials recently used a Signal group chat to discuss sensitive military planning. The problem? They accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, in the conversation. The scandal is still unfolding, but what has followed so far is a cascade of damage control, political deflection and, ultimately, distraction. Everyone wants to know: Was classified information shared? That is a valid question, but it is not the only question we need to answer. The real issue here isn't just about classification — it's about transparency and accountability. Signal is a remarkable tool. Praised by privacy advocates, journalists and dissidents alike, it offers end-to-end encryption, open-source transparency and a user-friendly experience that puts privacy within reach of the average user. In a world of ubiquitous surveillance, the Signal Messenger app, owned by the Signal Foundation—an organizations with a stated mission to protect free expression and enable secure global communication through open source privacy technology—stands out as a lifeline for private communication. But that doesn't make it invulnerable or foolproof. Especially not for state secrets. Government intelligence services can still exploit device-level vulnerabilities, access backups or leverage metadata to uncover patterns and participants. As Zak Doffman noted, Russia's GRU recently exploited group invite links to secretly join Signal chats. Encryption protects the message in transit, not the device it lives on. And when national security is at stake, using a personal cell phone with a consumer-grade app — even one as robust as Signal — is grossly irresponsible. Goldberg, the journalist mistakenly added to the Signal group, now possesses a record of the conversation that may or may not contain classified information. Some of the officials involved have embraced a tactic of impugning Goldberg as a strawman diversion from the real controversy. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who seems to have inadvertently invited Jeffrey Goldberg into the Signal chat, called him 'the bottom scum of journalists' in a Fox News interview. It does seem curious that Waltz seems to have the contact info for this 'scum' journalist readily available on his phone, but that is an issue for a different article. In response to the claims and accusations, Goldberg has published the full Signal transcript in The Atlantic, revealing that the chat did include specific details about planned military operations — missile strike targets, launch logistics and strategic goals. Though the administration continues to insist nothing was technically 'classified,' the operational nature of the conversation clearly falls within what most intelligence and defense experts would consider sensitive. By releasing the more complete exchange, Goldberg has proven his credibility. At the same time, he demonstrated greater care for truth, transparency and OPSEC than the cabinet members involved. His decision to delay publication until well after the operation contrasts sharply with officials who used the insecure tool and pointing fingers when they got caught. Let's be clear, though: whether administration officials shared classified information is not the only point. The obsession with that question serves as a convenient distraction from the broader implications of cabinet members or government officials communicating through private or unsanctioned channels. Officials have rushed to claim that they didn't discuss anything classified, as if that absolves them of wrongdoing. But, as Senator Mark Kelly explained to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a Senate hearing looking into this controversy, 'DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called 'controlled unclassified information,' or CUI, on unsecured devices.' Aside from the fact that their claim is doubtful, based on the transcript Goldberg shared, in a government accountable to the people, all official communication is subject to documentation, preservation and oversight. The moment a conversation veers into government business, it becomes a public record. Intentional or not, using of Signal in this context was an act of erasure—because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred. The foundation of democratic governance rests on transparency. Official channels exist not just for security, but for history, accountability and the people's right to know. When senior leaders choose encrypted group chats on private phones over secure, sanctioned systems, they're not protecting state secrets — they're shielding themselves from public scrutiny. It doesn't matter if they were discussing a Houthi strike or a cookie recipe for a state dinner. What matters is the process. If it's government work, it belongs to the American people. The Freedom of Information Act isn't optional. It's a legal framework designed to prevent exactly this kind of obfuscation. We've seen this movie before. From Hillary Clinton's private email server to disappearing messages on encrypted apps during the Trump era, the erosion of formal communication protocols has become a bipartisan affliction. Each instance chips away at public trust. And every time we let it slide, we normalize the idea that public service can be conducted in private shadows. This latest Signal scandal is a symptom of a deeper problem: a growing willingness among officials to use technology not to serve the people, but to sidestep them. Signal is not the villain here. In fact, it's one of the few digital tools that empowers citizens to reclaim privacy. But when public officials co-opt it as a backchannel for state business, they're not using it as intended. They're abusing it. Good governance demands more than just secure apps — it demands secure habits, documented decisions and a culture of accountability. This isn't about Signal. This is about transparency and trust. And the next time a government official opens an encrypted chat app to do the people's business, we should all be asking: what are they trying to hide?
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
War Plans Leak Reveals The Shocking Incompetence Of The Trump Administration
New details in the case of top U.S. officials messaging each other about war plans — and accidentally including a journalist in the conversation — reveal the breathtaking incompetence of President Donald Trump's administration just two months into his new term. The Atlantic on Wednesday published the full message chain from a Signal group chat that themagazine's editor-in-chief was inadvertently invited to join earlier this month. The messages, which The Atlantic first reported on Monday, discussed plans for strikes in Yemen, along with other sensitive national security matters. The conversation gives a glimpse into how lax some of the nation's top officials were while discussing those matters. 'We are currently clean on [operational security],' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth texted the group, which included several officials and a number that wasn't known to him: The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Here are some of the biggest takeaways from this national security failure: The Trump administration's decision to use a third-party messaging app like Signal flies in the face of basic operational security measures. Even before Monday's bombshell report, a Pentagon-wide email reportedly went out last week explicitly warning against using Signal for communications. 'A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal messenger application,' the email began. The email added that Russian hacking groups were targeting 'Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest.' But in this case, Russian hackers had nothing to do with the leaks: The Trump administration did that all on its own. After Goldberg published his initial story saying Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz, accidentally added him to the Signal group, Trump's team pushed back on the claim that they ever discussed war plans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday that 'No 'war plans' were discussed' and that 'No classified material was sent to the thread.' And on Wednesday, after The Atlantic published messages in which officials discussed the strike on Yemen, Hegseth defended himself on social media. 'So, let's me get this straight,' Hegseth wrote on X. 'The Atlantic released the so-called 'war plans' and those 'plans' include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.' 'Those are some really shitty war plans,' Hegseth added. But the former Fox News anchor and current defense secretary had sent some of the most revelatory messages of all in the group chat titled 'Houthis PC small group,' including a detailed timeline of the attack plans. More from Hegseth's texts: 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package) 1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)' 1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package) 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets) 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched. MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline) We are currently clean on OPSEC Godspeed to our Warriors. As The Atlantic pointed out in its story on Wednesday, it could have been catastrophic for U.S. troops if those messages had gotten into the wrong hands. Just 31 minutes after Hegseth wrote to the group, U.S. warplanes launched to carry out their attack. More from The Atlantic: If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic. As more information has come to light, the Trump administration has remained remarkably consistent on one point: It wasn't their fault. While testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe claimed that using Signal was a policy of President Joe Biden's administration. 'That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration,' Ratcliffe said. But former Biden officials stressed Signal was never allowed on their government phones. 'We were not allowed to have any messaging apps on our work phones,' one former top national security official told HuffPost on the condition of anonymity. 'And under no circumstances were unclassified messaging apps allowed to be used for transmission of classified material. This is misdirection at its worst.' In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, Waltz suggested that Goldberg may have intentionally infiltrated the group. 'You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact, so of course I didn't see this loser in the group,' Waltz said. 'It looked like someone else. Now whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical means is something we're trying to figure out.' Waltz couldn't seem to answer directly how Goldberg got on the text thread, leading Ingraham to say, 'That's disturbing.' 'That's why we've got the best technical minds, right?' Waltz responded. 'And that's where ... I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where it said one person and then it said a different number.' As Trump officials continue to point fingers at everyone but themselves, some Republican lawmakers have acknowledged the staggering incompetence taking place. 'Sounds like a huge screwup. I mean, is there any other way to describe it?' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on Monday. 'I don't think you should use Signal for classified information.' And Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) may have summed it up best in his response: 'Somebody fucked up.'
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pentagon warned of Russian Signal hacker infiltration after massive war plans bungle
Just days after senior Trump administration officials — including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — included a journalist in a Signal group chat discussing secret military plans, the Pentagon issued a warning that Russian hackers had cracked the app. According to the Pentagon advisory, officials should stop using the app, even for sending unclassified information, citing a "vulnerability." "A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal messenger application," the advisory, which was sent out on March 18, said, according to NPR. The advisory states that "Russian professional hacking groups are employing the 'linked devices' feature to spy on encrypted conversations." It goes on to note that Google has also identified Russian hackers who are targeting "Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest." Signal's benefit vs other messaging apps is that it is encrypted, and, in theory, should protect its users' messages from being intercepted by unwanted viewers. A spokesperson for Signal told the Pentagon that its security has not been broken, but warned that users falling victim to basic phishing attacks could still put their message privacy at risk. "Once we learned that Signal users were being targeted, and how they were being targeted, we introduced additional safeguards and in-app warnings to help protect people from falling victim to phishing attacks. This work was completed months ago," Signal spokesman Jun Harada told the Pentagon. The Pentagon memo included a note that "third-party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are not approved to process or store non-public unclassified information." Hegseth and other Trump administration officials used the app while planning the bombing of Houthi sites earlier in March. Even if Signal's security is top-notch, it doesn't stop people included in the group chat who shouldn't be there from viewing the information — people like the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. In a wild story published earlier this week, Goldberg explained how he was included in the sensitive group chat and watched in real time as the Houthi bombing was planned. Hegseth denied the incident happened and called Goldberg's character into question, but the Pentagon confirmed its veracity. Goldberg told CNN that Hegseth was lying, and said he has not published what he saw because he considered it "too confidential" and "too technical" to be made public, fearing that doing so would put US servicemembers at risk. Despite the unprecedented breach, Donald Trump insisted that no classified information had been shared in the group chat, and downplayed the incident before revealing that "a lot of the military" uses the app, which is known to be targeted by Russian hackers. 'It's just something that can happen. You can even prepare for it, and it can happen.' Trump said. "It's used by a lot of the military, and I think, successfully. But sometimes somebody can get onto those things. That's one of the prices you pay when you're not sitting in the Situation Room with no phones on, which is always the best, frankly." The president said his administration will "look into it."
The Independent
25-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Pentagon warned of Russian Signal hacker infiltration after massive war plans bungle
Just days after senior Trump administration officials — including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth — included a journalist in a Signal group chat discussing secret military plans, the Pentagon issued a warning that Russian hackers had cracked the app. According to the Pentagon advisory, officials should stop using the app, even for sending unclassified information, citing a "vulnerability." "A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal messenger application," the advisory, which was sent out on March 18, said, according to NPR. The advisory states that "Russian professional hacking groups are employing the 'linked devices' feature to spy on encrypted conversations." It goes on to note that Google has also identified Russian hackers who are targeting "Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest." Signal's benefit vs other messaging apps is that it is encrypted, and, in theory, should protect its users' messages from being intercepted by unwanted viewers. A spokesperson for Signal told the Pentagon that its security has not been broken, but warned that users falling victim to basic phishing attacks could still put their message privacy at risk. "Once we learned that Signal users were being targeted, and how they were being targeted, we introduced additional safeguards and in-app warnings to help protect people from falling victim to phishing attacks. This work was completed months ago," Signal spokesman Jun Harada told the Pentagon. The Pentagon memo included a note that "third-party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are not approved to process or store non-public unclassified information." Hegseth and other Trump administration officials used the app while planning the bombing of Houthi sites earlier in March. Even if Signal's security is top-notch, it doesn't stop people included in the group chat who shouldn't be there from viewing the information — people like the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. In a wild story published earlier this week, Goldberg explained how he was included in the sensitive group chat and watched in real time as the Houthi bombing was planned. Hegseth denied the incident happened and called Goldberg's character into question, but the Pentagon confirmed its veracity. Goldberg told CNN that Hegseth was lying, and said he has not published what he saw because he considered it "too confidential" and "too technical" to be made public, fearing that doing so would put US servicemembers at risk. Despite the unprecedented breach, Donald Trump insisted that no classified information had been shared in the group chat, and downplayed the incident before revealing that "a lot of the military" uses the app, which is known to be targeted by Russian hackers. 'It's just something that can happen. You can even prepare for it, and it can happen.' Trump said. "It's used by a lot of the military, and I think, successfully. But sometimes somebody can get onto those things. That's one of the prices you pay when you're not sitting in the Situation Room with no phones on, which is always the best, frankly." The president said his administration will "look into it."
