The recent headlines about vulnerabilities in Signal, a messaging app long touted for its end-to-end encryption and privacy-first design, have sent ripples through the cybersecurity and communications worlds. For professionals in communications, marketing, and PR who rely on secure channels to manage sensitive conversations, these revelations are more than just technical footnotes. They raise urgent questions about how secure our “secure” tools really are, and what’s at stake when those tools fall short. The truth is, no system is immune to exploitation. And when even the most trusted platforms show cracks, the consequences stretch far beyond the IT department.

High-security messaging apps like Signal can be compromised, either by human error or cyberattacks. What does this mean for organizations managing sensitive data, and what should leaders in communications and security be doing right now to reduce exposure? This is not a theoretical exercise. It’s a call for a more disciplined, better-informed approach to communications security, one that acknowledges the real-world tactics of threat actors and the operational blind spots that too many organizations still ignore.

Understanding the attack vectors

Signal’s reputation for security is well-earned. Its open-source protocol is widely respected, and its encryption model has been adopted by other platforms, including WhatsApp. But no system is flawless. A recent NPR feature on vulnerabilities within Pentagon communications highlights just how fragile even highly secure systems can be when subjected to targeted attacks.

According to the Pentagon, security researchers have identified multiple ways in which attackers can compromise Signal communications without breaking its encryption. One of the most effective tactics has been phishing. Russian hacking groups, as reported by the NSA, have used phishing pages and malicious QR codes disguised as legitimate Signal group invite links. These links trick users into adding attacker-controlled devices to their Signal accounts. Once added, the attacker gains real-time access to all future messages in that conversation. The encryption itself remains intact, but the attacker is now a legitimate participant in the chat. This is the equivalent of someone slipping into a secure boardroom meeting by stealing a badge, no need to crack the safe when the door is open.

Another attack vector comes from Signal’s multi-device functionality. Users can link their account to desktop applications, which are often less secure than mobile devices. Unlike mobile phones, desktops may lack biometric locks or full-disk encryption. Worse, Signal doesn’t currently notify users when a contact links a new device. This creates a visibility gap. If an attacker compromises a desktop, they gain access not only to stored messages but to ongoing conversations as well. That’s a serious liability for any organization handling confidential information, be it corporate strategy, crisis communications, or sensitive negotiations.

Another major issue is metadata leakage. While Signal encrypts message content, it still transmits metadata such as who is talking to whom and when. For government agencies and businesses handling classified or proprietary information, this can be a significant security risk. Cases have been highlighted where foreign intelligence agencies exploited metadata to map communication networks and infer sensitive relationships between individuals, even if the actual messages remained unreadable.

Why communications leaders should pay attention

For communications, marketing, and PR professionals, these technical flaws translate into operational risks. Confidential media strategies, embargoed press releases, and crisis response plans often flow through encrypted messaging apps. The assumption is that encryption equals safety. But as we’ve seen, the real risk often lies in how these tools are used, not how they’re built.

Imagine a PR team coordinating a response to a major reputational crisis, using Signal to keep their discussions private. If one team member’s desktop is compromised, the attacker now has access to the entire conversation thread. That includes draft statements, internal assessments, and real-time strategy adjustments. The fallout could be disastrous, not just in terms of the breach itself, but in how it undermines trust with clients, stakeholders, and the public.

In marketing, product launch plans, advertising budgets, and influencer contracts often contain sensitive financial and strategic information. If that data leaks, competitors gain an unfair advantage. Worse, the brand’s credibility takes a hit. No amount of spin can fix a breach that was preventable.

What security measures actually work

So what can be done? The first step is recognizing that encryption is not a silver bullet. It’s one part of a broader security posture that must include device hygiene, access controls, and user awareness.

Secure device management is non-negotiable. Every device that accesses sensitive communications must be kept up to date with the latest operating system patches. Antivirus software should be standard, and full-disk encryption should be mandatory. Passwords must be strong and unique, and biometric authentication should be enabled wherever possible. These are table stakes, not optional extras.

Organizations must rethink their use of third-party apps for sensitive communications. The NSA, in its guidance, has advised government personnel to avoid using Signal for classified or sensitive conversations. While that may not be practical for every business, it’s a strong signal (no pun intended) that not all encrypted apps are created equal.

Group chat hygiene is another overlooked area. Every member of a sensitive group conversation should be vetted and verified. If someone leaves a project, their access to group chats must be revoked immediately.

Training matters. Many of the phishing attacks that compromise Signal accounts rely on social engineering. Teaching employees how to spot suspicious links, question unexpected group invites, and verify QR codes can prevent many of these attacks before they start.

The broader implications for data privacy and trust

The implications of these vulnerabilities extend far beyond technical inconvenience. They strike at the heart of trust, trust between colleagues, between brands and customers, and between organizations and the public. When sensitive information leaks, the damage isn’t limited to the immediate breach. It erodes confidence in the systems we use to communicate, collaborate, and make decisions.

For regulated industries, the risks are even higher. A breach involving confidential communications could trigger legal consequences under data protection laws like GDPR or CCPA. Fines can be steep, but the reputational damage can be worse. Once a brand is seen as careless with data, regaining public trust is an uphill battle.

Next steps for communications leaders

For executives in communications, marketing, and PR, the takeaway is clear: security is no longer someone else’s problem. It’s an operational responsibility. Communications leaders don’t need to be cybersecurity experts, but they do need to understand where the organization’s tools fall short and how to mitigate those risks.

Start by auditing current communications tools. Identify the gaps. Are there unmonitored group chats with former employees? Are messages being stored on unsecured desktops? Are QR codes being shared without verification?

Then, work with IT and security teams to put guardrails in place. That might mean shifting sensitive discussions to more secure channels. It might mean rolling out training on phishing awareness. It might mean setting clear policies about which tools can be used for what kinds of content.

Signal is still one of the most secure messaging apps available, but it’s not foolproof. And as recent incidents have shown, even the best tools can be compromised if used carelessly. Communications leaders must stop thinking of security as someone else’s job and start treating it as a core part of their own.