Phishing Attack on Signal Sparks Debate Over Secure Political Messaging
A recent phishing attack on Signal has reignited discussions about secure messaging for political communications. Attackers targeted high-profile users, including politicians, by exploiting human error rather than a technical flaw. In response, some officials have called for Signal to be replaced with more secure alternatives like Wire.
The phishing incident involved fraudulent messages sent via Signal, aiming to trick users into revealing login details. Benjamin Schilz, representing the messaging platform Wire, clarified that the attack did not exploit a weakness in Signal’s software but relied on deceiving individuals.
Following the breach, certain political figures proposed banning Signal for parliamentary use. Wire, a European-based company with most of its team in Germany, has positioned itself as a more secure option. Unlike Signal, Wire does not require a phone number for registration, reducing the risk of phishing attacks. Wire’s infrastructure currently uses a mix of European providers and Amazon servers, though the company is transitioning fully to European hosting. It also offers extra security features, such as customisable policies, to protect sensitive communications for corporations and governments. The platform’s major investors include Janus Friis, co-founder of Skype, the Schwarz Group, and two German funds, with over 90% of shareholders being European. While Wire is not yet profitable, the company anticipates turning a profit in 2023.
The phishing attack has highlighted vulnerabilities in human behaviour rather than messaging technology itself. Wire’s approach—avoiding phone number requirements and offering stricter security controls—could make it a stronger candidate for official use. The company’s European focus and investor backing further strengthen its position in the market.
