Is it a Liability that Signal Uses AWS?

Is it a Liability that Signal Uses AWS?

Background

On October 20, 2025, a major Amazon Web Services (AWS) outage disrupted digital life across the globe. Starting around 7 AM ET, the outage originated from AWS's Northern Virginia data center and cascaded through the internet, taking down hundreds of services that millions rely on daily. From gaming platforms like Fortnite and Roblox to financial apps like Robinhood and Venmo, the outage revealed just how fragile our digital infrastructure has become.

The disruption affected over 113 AWS services and generated more than 6.5 million user reports on Downdetector within hours. Among the casualties was Signal, the encrypted messaging app trusted by privacy advocates, journalists, and activists worldwide. Signal's president, Meredith Whittaker, confirmed on X that the platform was hit by the AWS outage, sparking a crucial conversation: is Signal's reliance on AWS a liability?

The Issue

When Signal went down due to the AWS outage, it raised some eyebrows. Signal has built its reputation on providing secure, encrypted communication that's resistant to surveillance and interference. Yet here was a service designed to be resilient and private, rendered completely unavailable because of a third-party provider's failure.

The concern isn't just academic. As Article 19, a nongovernmental organization promoting freedom of expression, warned during the outage: "These disruptions are not just technical issues, they're democratic failures." When a single provider goes dark, critical communication infrastructure crumbles with it. Even Elon Musk weighed in, calling it "pretty weird" and noting that "AWS is in the loop and can take out Signal at any time." This dependency creates a single point of failure for a service that many users rely on for secure communication in high-stakes situations.

Key Takeaways

AWS is a systemic liability for much of the web. With AWS controlling approximately 30% of the global cloud services market, outages like this one demonstrate the risks of consolidation. When AWS goes down, it doesn't just affect Amazon's services—it takes down a significant portion of the internet's infrastructure. This concentration of power in a few tech giants creates vulnerabilities that ripple across the entire digital ecosystem.

Signal's use of AWS opens them up to outages beyond their control. No matter how robust Signal's own code and infrastructure are, they cannot prevent an AWS outage from taking their service offline. This dependency means Signal's availability is ultimately at the mercy of Amazon's infrastructure decisions, maintenance schedules, and technical failures. For users who depend on Signal for critical communication—journalists in hostile environments, activists organizing protests, or simply people who value privacy—this creates a real problem.

An outage is NOT evidence that the primary service is compromised. This is crucial to understand: when Signal goes down due to an AWS outage, your messages aren't suddenly readable by Amazon or anyone else. The encryption remains intact. Your message history isn't exposed. The fundamental security guarantees of Signal—end-to-end encryption, metadata minimization, open-source code—remain unchanged. An availability problem is not the same as a security or privacy breach.

Infrastructure dependencies are a trade-off, not a failure. Using AWS allows Signal to scale efficiently, reduce operational costs, and focus resources on their core mission of providing secure communication rather than managing physical servers worldwide. The question isn't whether Signal should use cloud infrastructure—it's whether the benefits outweigh the risks for your specific use case.

Real-Life Examples

The October 2025 outage wasn't an isolated incident. AWS experienced major outages in 2021 (lasting five hours) and 2023, each time disrupting thousands of services. During the 2021 outage, customers couldn't access airline reservations, payment apps, and numerous other essential services. These recurring failures demonstrate that cloud infrastructure outages are not rare events—they're predictable risks that services and users must account for.

Other encrypted messaging platforms face similar dependencies. WhatsApp, which also experienced issues during this outage, runs on Meta's infrastructure. Telegram uses a mix of cloud providers. No major messaging platform is immune to infrastructure failures, and each comes with its own set of trade-offs between security, availability, and operational complexity.

Next Steps

So, does the AWS outage prove that Signal is all smoke and mirrors and has the security credentials of a paper bag? Absolutely not; the AWS outage doesn't make Signal less secure, the messages are still completely end to end encrypted. However, it does highlight an important truth: your threat model matters. If your primary concern is protecting the content of your communications from surveillance, Signal remains one of the better choices available. The encryption works regardless of where the servers are hosted. However, if guaranteed availability is critical (if you need to know your messages will always get through) then you need a backup plan.

Consider what you're actually trying to protect against. Are you worried about message content being intercepted? Signal's encryption protects you. Are you worried about metadata exposure? Signal minimizes that risk. Are you worried about service availability during infrastructure failures? That's where diversification comes in—having backup communication channels, whether that's another messaging app, a phone number, or a predetermined meeting place.

Evaluate your own threat model and communication needs, then decide if Signal's trade-offs align with your priorities.