[Andrew_nenakhov]

I'm arguing with your comments, not the article. Comparing Signal with XMPP is silly. It's like saying 'Firefox is more secure than XML'.

Signal is a product, XMPP is a protocol. That said, XMPP can be potentially used to build communication products that are far more secure than Signal because of a simple virtue of being able to control all components of a service instead of relying on someone else to run a server for you.

And no, this is not the same as verifying the code of Signal, because with your custom XMPP deployment you need to verify your code once, and not worry about the server admin adversary, while on Signal you will have to verify updates every single time.

[infosechandbook]

> Comparing Signal with XMPP is silly.

Could you please add your statement to any other comments by XMPP proponents that state "XMPP is better than Signal because ..."?

Plus, could you also consider this for all of your own comparisons of XMPP and Signal?

> XMPP can be potentially used

Again, a lot of guessing and assumptions what could be in a perfect XMPP world, but nobody finds nowadays.

> with your custom XMPP deployment

This isn't a unique property of XMPP.

[topdancing]

> Again, a lot of guessing and assumptions what could be in a perfect XMPP world, but nobody finds nowadays.

The German police and British health service would say that their XMPP implementations are pretty secure implementations:

- https://twitter.com/inputmice/status/1203611711967813633

- https://hellopando.com/ / https://www.erlang-solutions.com/case-studies/pando-health-c...