I recently watched Rob Braxman on the security of encrypted messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp. In his video, Rob pointed out that many apps access our contact lists and build webs of associations. Even though the cryptography protecting message contents is generally effective, it may be possible for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to know the identity of a person’s connections.
Let’s dig deeper.
If a law enforcement agency considers you a person of interest, they may discover that you use encrypted messaging apps like Signal. While law enforcement will not be able to easily view the contents of your conversations, they will be able to see with whom you are conversing.
Also, the appearance of using an encrypted messaging app could suggest that you have something to hide.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective. Consider an active law enforcement investigation focusing on a particular person. If you are in the person’s contact list, and if that person is known to be communicating with you on an encrypted service, then you may become another person of interest in the investigation.
I watched Rob’s video twice, and then I recalled something I see in Signal often: when someone in my contact list installs Signal, I get a notification from Signal that the contact is using the app. I recently noticed that I frequently do not recognize the contact’s name, and I dismiss the notification. I’ve had this occur dozens of times this year.
Then it hit me: I have been collecting contacts for decades, and they’re stored in multiple services (primarily, Yahoo and Google). In previous jobs, I’ve had associations with numerous clients, partners, vendors, co-workers, and other associates, resulting in an accumulation of thousands of contacts, most of whom I barely know.
Last week, I found it difficult to rationalize keeping all of these contacts and purged them. In Google alone, I had well over one-thousand contacts. After spending time last weekend deleting extraneous contacts, I’m down to about three hundred, and I might go back through them and remove many more.
Encrypted apps and your association with contacts are not the only risks related to maintaining a long contact list. Another issue is this: if someone breaks into any of my services where I keep many contacts, I don’t want people getting Joe Job and other attacks made possible through contact harvesting.
Until recently, I didn’t consider my accumulated contacts a liability, but I do now.
In my day job, one of my responsibilities includes leading numerous programs, including data governance, which includes data classification and data retention. And, having been a QSA for many years, the concept of data-as-asset and data-as-liability are clear to me. For instance, retaining credit card data after a transaction has been completed may provide value to an organization. Still, it also presents itself as a liability: if that stored card data is compromised, the consequences may significantly outweigh its benefit. Somehow, I didn’t apply this concept to personal contact data. Thanks again to Rob Braxman for nudging me to realize that contact data can be just as toxic as other forms of sensitive information.
Postscript: think about this in another way: would you want others you worked with in the past to remove you from their contact lists?
for it. Today it has been made public that the TSA’s detailed airport security procedures manual has been posted to the Internet. The TSA was putting out some services to bid, and posted what they believed to be a redacted version of the document. Well it turns out that the redaction technique they chose was ineffective.
The FBI has taken a career identity thief into custody in Seattle. Problem is, they have no idea who it is.
As to 
Peter H. Gregory 