By what metric? Arguably, users are less secure since "fixing" Messages (i.e. breaking Beeper) means Apple and Android users lose a secure communication channel.
Beeper isn't "hacking" Messages... they've implemented the protocol.
> Arguably, users are less secure since "fixing" Messages (i.e. breaking Beeper) means Apple and Android users lose a secure communication channel.
If you hack a secure communications channel so that unauthorized client software/hardware can pretend to be authorized software/hardware, how does that make the channel more secure?
> If you hack a secure communications channel so that unauthorized client software/hardware can pretend to be authorized software/hardware, how does that make the channel more secure?
How does it make more insecure? It doesnt, security should be accomplished by the protocol, messages themselves not by blockong access to a communication channel.
Otherwise its just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
> Reverse-engineering a closed protocol and distributing an Apple Binary (IIRC correctly) are a bit more than just "implementing a protocol."
Reverse-engineering the protocol was the first step to implementing it. The point is that there was no vulnerability exploited in the protocol - it's as secure as it ever was.
I don't think they are shipping an Apple binary. Can you provide a source for that?
To lose something you'd have to have had it to begin with. Users aren't gaining an additional secure messaging channel would be a more accurate description.
I personally won't waste my time trying to be an early adopter of this. I suspect the upcoming RCS support will be the only "apple native" way to have non-shit tier messaging between android and iOS, and Apple will keep breaking Beeper if they can.
Beeper is not exploiting any kind of vulnerability. The user is voluntarily providing their Apple ID credentials (or doing the SMS verification process to prove ownership of their number), just like they would on an iPhone.