Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What encryption protocol does Session Messenger use?
Executive Summary
Session Messenger uses its own custom encryption scheme called the Session Protocol, a purpose-built end-to-end encryption protocol for a decentralized, onion-routed network. The protocol is implemented atop well-known cryptographic primitives (notably libsodium/Ed25519 and elliptic-curve operations) and intentionally trades some classical Signal-era properties—most notably Perfect Forward Secrecy and strong deniability—for architectural choices that prioritize decentralization, anonymity, and reliability [1] [2].
1. What the project claims: the official line and docs that matter
Session’s official materials and developer documentation present the Session Protocol as the application’s native encryption layer and the core mechanism delivering end-to-end confidentiality across one-on-one and group chats. The project emphasizes anonymity, onion routing, and stateless node behavior as primary design goals, and frames the Session Protocol as tailored for a decentralized service network rather than as a drop-in Signal clone [3] [1]. The documentation published and maintained by the project continues to present the protocol as the definitive encryption standard for the app; this is the central authoritative claim users encounter when evaluating Session’s security posture [1].
2. Technical building blocks: what engineers actually implemented
Independent analyses and Session’s own technical notes indicate the protocol uses Ed25519 keypairs for signing, elliptic-curve Diffie–Hellman for key agreement, and libsodium primitives for symmetric operations, with ephemeral keys used in some exchanges and long-term keys retained for identity and routing. The implementation deliberately simplifies some aspects of the Signal double-ratchet architecture to support stateless nodes and efficient group messaging on a decentralized network, while reusing audited cryptographic libraries when possible [2] [1]. This combination explains why Session can claim strong cryptographic primitives while deviating from Signal’s exact lifecycle for session keys and ratchet state [2].
3. Design trade-offs: why Session departs from Signal-era guarantees
Security reviews and critical write-ups document a conscious choice in Session’s protocol design to sacrifice some Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) and cryptographic deniability in exchange for operational properties that favor anonymity and multi-device reliability. In practical terms, that means a compromise: Session preserves end-to-end encryption for messages, but if a long-term private key is compromised, past messages tied to that key may be decryptable—a weaker archival secrecy guarantee than Signal’s continuous ratcheting model [2] [4]. The project’s defenders argue that the decentralized, onion-routed architecture and Service Node protections reduce the real-world risk of key compromise being exploited, but this is a policy-and-threat-model trade-off rather than a purely cryptographic improvement [2].
4. Evolution and provenance: from Signal roots to a bespoke protocol
Session began as a forked approach informed by Signal’s protocol for one-to-one messaging, but the project moved to a custom Session Protocol in 2020 to address decentralization, stateless nodes, and group scalability. Historical analyses show Session initially used Signal primitives and Sender Keys for groups, then replaced those components with a streamlined protocol that fits the project’s architectural constraints [5] [4] [6]. The migration explains why multiple sources describe Session as “Signal-like” in cryptographic fundamentals while also noting substantive differences in key lifecycle and anonymity features developed after branching away from Signal conventions [5] [4].
5. Independent scrutiny: audits, reviews, and contrasting expert takes
An independent 2021 review by Quarkslab is repeatedly cited by the project as validation that the protocol matches its encryption claims, and multiple subsequent reviews and write-ups have reiterated that Session delivers end-to-end encrypted messaging using established primitives [7] [5]. Security researchers and commentators, however, flag the deliberate reduction in PFS and deniability as meaningful trade-offs that change the threat model: auditors can confirm correct cryptographic implementation while still noting that design choices increase certain risks if long-term keys are exposed [7] [2]. Users and analysts should treat audit endorsements as confirmations of implementation correctness, not as blanket endorsements of every architectural choice [7].
6. What this means for users today and remaining open questions
For end users the net result is clear: Session provides end-to-end encryption via its Session Protocol, using established primitives and decentralization features to improve anonymity; however, it does not deliver the identical forward secrecy and deniability properties of Signal’s double-ratchet in every scenario. Practical caveats include push-notification dependencies and the operational realities of self-hosted or Service Node networks that can affect metadata exposure and reliability [3] [6] [1]. Remaining uncertainties stem from protocol evolution and recent changes: the protocol documentation and recent analyses (updated within the last year) are the best current references, but users with the strictest PFS demands should carefully weigh Session’s architectural trade-offs against their personal threat model [1] [6].