Hell yeah. I always hated Telegram, because of its countless false promises, misleading claims, bad encryption (which isn't even enabled by default) and shady background.
That bad encryption was not cracked for now. The other one, that is used to process chats between 2 users in end to end mode, can't be enabled by default because it assumes no history is kept and no support for group chats.
Also, the arrest doesn't seem to be related to any of the things you mentioned. If anything it shows there are no ways for (certain) governments to affect the messenger, for now.
That bad encryption was not cracked for now
There is no encryption by default if you haven't noticed. There only the pseudo-E2EE which has been proven to have critical weaknesses: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
can't be enabled by default
Yes it can, every proper E2EE messenger works like that. Signal, Threema, hell even WhatsApp uses E2EE by default.
no support for group chats
Signal has had group chats for many years now. WhatsApp uses the same encryption protocol and it also works just fine. Stop spreading misinformation, and use Signal if you want an actual secure, end-to-end encrypted, open and transparent messenger.
has been proven to have critical weaknesses
Those are not critical, just some aspects being below some arbitrary expectational values. Also it seems there is still no proofs those vector attacks are being used at all.
Yes it can
They chose to target convenience over max security. Shoving strongest options to every user by default is agaiantt that. Reasons include: no history is being saved in this mode, and the desktop client doesn't support it.
Signal has had group chats for many years now
Just because it was implemented by others doesn't mean it's a way to go for everyone. From what I understand, e2e in group chats means that there is going to be a transaction of keys between all members of the chat on adding any new member, and/or on new message, which excessively increases the burden on clients and servers in case of big active chats.
You can ask telegram to implement that, but you can't blame it for keeping it behind some gates. Telegram got implemented e2e between 2 users before other messengers got it working in any form of group chats.
and use Signal
I'll think about it if they ditch electron.
Also it seems there is still no proofs those vector attacks are being used at all.
Ah yes, definitely go with a messenger that has known vulnerabilities in its crappy encryption protocol, instead of one with an actual secure E2EE implementation.
no history is being saved in this mode
You can still make encrypted backups of encrypted messages, as can be seen on WhatsApp or Signal
and the desktop client doesn't support it
I don't know what you mean, both Signal and WhatsApp have managed to ship desktop clients with full E2EE support for years now. Only Telegram is too incompetent to do that.
Telegram got implemented e2e between 2 users before other messengers got it working in any form of group chats
Just stop lying. Telegram Secret Chats have been introduced in 2017, both Signal and WhatsApp have had E2EE (including for group chats!) for much longer. Signal has had (encrypted) group chats in 2014, back when it was called TextSecure: https://signal.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/
And WhatsApp followed in 2016.
I'll think about it if they ditch electron.
Are you mad that Signal is focusing on privacy and security by improving their encryption protocol, instead of wasting time on some UI garbage? This shows your priorities really well. Keep using unencrypted Telegram, for the cool stickers and convenient cloud backup, and keep in mind that Telegram can read all of your messages, as well as hand them over to governments.
Ah yes, definitely go with a messenger that has known vulnerabilities in its crappy encryption protocol, instead of one with an actual secure E2EE implementation.
Feel free to go any way you want. I'm not asking you to use telegram.
You can still make encrypted backups
Spend time for that, and keep them where? Maybe also need a feature to sync them between mobile and desktop?
Only Telegram is too incompetent to do that.
Not an implementation issue but a trust issue.
Just stop lying. Telegram Secret Chats have been introduced in 2017
both Signal and WhatsApp have had E2EE (including for group chats!) for much longer.
Whatsapp had them inctorudec in 2016.
Are you mad that Signal is focusing on privacy and security by improving their encryption protocol, instead of wasting time on some UI garbage?
I'm perfectly fine with that. More apps using electron means less chance for my pc to run garbage applications on a regular basis.
keep in mind that Telegram can read all of your messages, as well as hand them over to governments.
Keep in mind that any person in your secret chats can read your message, copy or screenshot it and hand it to anyone else. Those people know much better if you're doing anything sketchy (or something actually good but against their beliefs), than an app developer.
That bad encryption was not cracked for now.
There's no need if you control the server.
End to end encryption was created specifically so that the server could not access the data.
So how many people use E2EE with Telegram?
And their ToS forbids alternative clients doing that. Say, using Pidgin with PGP or OTR. Since Pidgin plugins for TG and these exist, it's not a limitation for me, but most people, again, don't use Pidgin to chat in TG.
Alternate clients are blocked from using that functionality because they may include ability to capture data somewhere, for example taking a screenshot of a protected chat.
I meant normal E2EE, not TG's "encrypted chats".
And it's not "that functionality", it's literally encoding messages into another layer over TG being forbidden.
There is no normal e2ee because there is no standard for implementation, especially when it comes to group chats with >2 people.
The Signal protocol is the de-facto standard for E2EE, and it works just fine even in large group chats. But you refuse to accept this reality. The Signal protocol is used by so many apps, obviously Signal itself, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Instagram direct messages, Google Allo (back when it existed), Google Messages (RCS), Skype, Wire and many others. MTProto is developed by Telegram, only used by telegram, not properly audited and full of flaws. No one should actually use it. And the fact that it doesn't support group chats is a design choice, because ultimately Telegram doesn't give a fuck about their users privacy or security. They have repeatedly worked with governments and worked against the interests of their users. Their funding is also pretty unclear and shady, and the entire company just appears scummy. Give me one single reason why anyone should use this trash over a proper E2EE messenger like Signal, Threema, SimpleX or Wire.
You switched the topic of the discussion. My original comment stands, as it corrects some part of your first comment.
I didn't suggest anyone to use telegram.
They have repeatedly worked with governments and worked against the interests of their users.
Even though those allegations are arguable, I know what you mean. And those cases don't involve compromising the actual encryption from what I understand.
There are a few standards. OMEMO for group chats, though that, of course, requires support in the protocol itself, unlike OTR or PGP.
It doesn't look like any of those are used by "major" messengers. Especially signal. This means "major" players prefer their own implementations, which removes the meaning from calling unused stuff a "standard".
OMEMO is literally what's used by Signal, but standardized separately and adopted for XMPP. You didn't even bother to look it up apparently.
OTR is a time-honored standard. The issue is that it doesn't work with multiple logins.
PGP is an even more time-honored standard. The issue is that keys aren't temporary.
Also in cryptography the absolutely basic rule is to trust cryptographers, not "major players", so what you wrote is not as smart as you think. Actually quite ignorant.
Cool. So that gives people authority to say "if it's used by signal and is standardized then it should be used by everyone"?
No, just that it's a real thing and whatever there is in TG is something bogus.
Stop pretending that Telegram cares about the security of their users, because they clearly aren't, as can be seen in their shitty encryption protocol, and the fact that by default all messages are stored on their servers in plain text
So if an app doesn't support e2ee all data is being saved in plain text suddenly. You prefer calling telegram shitty because you don't care to actually learn what it uses. So it should be fair for me to call any other client shitty for other nonsense.
Uh you appear not to understand how encryption works? Either something is end-to-end encrypted, and the service provider doesn't have access to the encryption keys, and thus can't read the messages, or it is encrypted in transit, the keys are held by the provider and the messages are decrypted on the server. The latter is exactly what Telegram does, even though they falsely try to market it as something else.
the messages are decrypted on the server
What you said means they can be decrypted on the server. But there is no proof of that happening in the past. People got into problems not because someone uncovered their content in telegram, but because that content was effectively public from the beginning.
Hell yeah. I always hated Telegram, because of its countless false promises, misleading claims, bad encryption (which isn't even enabled by default) and shady background.
That bad encryption was not cracked for now. The other one, that is used to process chats between 2 users in end to end mode, can't be enabled by default because it assumes no history is kept and no support for group chats.
Also, the arrest doesn't seem to be related to any of the things you mentioned. If anything it shows there are no ways for (certain) governments to affect the messenger, for now.
There is no encryption by default if you haven't noticed. There only the pseudo-E2EE which has been proven to have critical weaknesses: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
Yes it can, every proper E2EE messenger works like that. Signal, Threema, hell even WhatsApp uses E2EE by default.
Signal has had group chats for many years now. WhatsApp uses the same encryption protocol and it also works just fine. Stop spreading misinformation, and use Signal if you want an actual secure, end-to-end encrypted, open and transparent messenger.
Those are not critical, just some aspects being below some arbitrary expectational values. Also it seems there is still no proofs those vector attacks are being used at all.
They chose to target convenience over max security. Shoving strongest options to every user by default is agaiantt that. Reasons include: no history is being saved in this mode, and the desktop client doesn't support it.
Just because it was implemented by others doesn't mean it's a way to go for everyone. From what I understand, e2e in group chats means that there is going to be a transaction of keys between all members of the chat on adding any new member, and/or on new message, which excessively increases the burden on clients and servers in case of big active chats.
You can ask telegram to implement that, but you can't blame it for keeping it behind some gates. Telegram got implemented e2e between 2 users before other messengers got it working in any form of group chats.
I'll think about it if they ditch electron.
Ah yes, definitely go with a messenger that has known vulnerabilities in its crappy encryption protocol, instead of one with an actual secure E2EE implementation.
You can still make encrypted backups of encrypted messages, as can be seen on WhatsApp or Signal
I don't know what you mean, both Signal and WhatsApp have managed to ship desktop clients with full E2EE support for years now. Only Telegram is too incompetent to do that.
Just stop lying. Telegram Secret Chats have been introduced in 2017, both Signal and WhatsApp have had E2EE (including for group chats!) for much longer. Signal has had (encrypted) group chats in 2014, back when it was called TextSecure: https://signal.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ And WhatsApp followed in 2016.
Are you mad that Signal is focusing on privacy and security by improving their encryption protocol, instead of wasting time on some UI garbage? This shows your priorities really well. Keep using unencrypted Telegram, for the cool stickers and convenient cloud backup, and keep in mind that Telegram can read all of your messages, as well as hand them over to governments.
Feel free to go any way you want. I'm not asking you to use telegram.
Spend time for that, and keep them where? Maybe also need a feature to sync them between mobile and desktop?
Not an implementation issue but a trust issue.
https://telegram.org/evolution see October 2013.
Whatsapp had them inctorudec in 2016.
I'm perfectly fine with that. More apps using electron means less chance for my pc to run garbage applications on a regular basis.
Keep in mind that any person in your secret chats can read your message, copy or screenshot it and hand it to anyone else. Those people know much better if you're doing anything sketchy (or something actually good but against their beliefs), than an app developer.
There's no need if you control the server.
End to end encryption was created specifically so that the server could not access the data.
So how many people use E2EE with Telegram?
And their ToS forbids alternative clients doing that. Say, using Pidgin with PGP or OTR. Since Pidgin plugins for TG and these exist, it's not a limitation for me, but most people, again, don't use Pidgin to chat in TG.
Alternate clients are blocked from using that functionality because they may include ability to capture data somewhere, for example taking a screenshot of a protected chat.
I meant normal E2EE, not TG's "encrypted chats".
And it's not "that functionality", it's literally encoding messages into another layer over TG being forbidden.
There is no normal e2ee because there is no standard for implementation, especially when it comes to group chats with >2 people.
The Signal protocol is the de-facto standard for E2EE, and it works just fine even in large group chats. But you refuse to accept this reality. The Signal protocol is used by so many apps, obviously Signal itself, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Instagram direct messages, Google Allo (back when it existed), Google Messages (RCS), Skype, Wire and many others. MTProto is developed by Telegram, only used by telegram, not properly audited and full of flaws. No one should actually use it. And the fact that it doesn't support group chats is a design choice, because ultimately Telegram doesn't give a fuck about their users privacy or security. They have repeatedly worked with governments and worked against the interests of their users. Their funding is also pretty unclear and shady, and the entire company just appears scummy. Give me one single reason why anyone should use this trash over a proper E2EE messenger like Signal, Threema, SimpleX or Wire.
You switched the topic of the discussion. My original comment stands, as it corrects some part of your first comment.
I didn't suggest anyone to use telegram.
Even though those allegations are arguable, I know what you mean. And those cases don't involve compromising the actual encryption from what I understand.
There are a few standards. OMEMO for group chats, though that, of course, requires support in the protocol itself, unlike OTR or PGP.
It doesn't look like any of those are used by "major" messengers. Especially signal. This means "major" players prefer their own implementations, which removes the meaning from calling unused stuff a "standard".
OMEMO is literally what's used by Signal, but standardized separately and adopted for XMPP. You didn't even bother to look it up apparently.
OTR is a time-honored standard. The issue is that it doesn't work with multiple logins.
PGP is an even more time-honored standard. The issue is that keys aren't temporary.
Also in cryptography the absolutely basic rule is to trust cryptographers, not "major players", so what you wrote is not as smart as you think. Actually quite ignorant.
Cool. So that gives people authority to say "if it's used by signal and is standardized then it should be used by everyone"?
No, just that it's a real thing and whatever there is in TG is something bogus.
Stop pretending that Telegram cares about the security of their users, because they clearly aren't, as can be seen in their shitty encryption protocol, and the fact that by default all messages are stored on their servers in plain text
So if an app doesn't support e2ee all data is being saved in plain text suddenly. You prefer calling telegram shitty because you don't care to actually learn what it uses. So it should be fair for me to call any other client shitty for other nonsense.
Uh you appear not to understand how encryption works? Either something is end-to-end encrypted, and the service provider doesn't have access to the encryption keys, and thus can't read the messages, or it is encrypted in transit, the keys are held by the provider and the messages are decrypted on the server. The latter is exactly what Telegram does, even though they falsely try to market it as something else.
What you said means they can be decrypted on the server. But there is no proof of that happening in the past. People got into problems not because someone uncovered their content in telegram, but because that content was effectively public from the beginning.
That's right, but it's not properly implemented in Telegram. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
You haven't read the article or the summary from the comments, have you?