3 ms·
> From that perspective, I'm still inclined to trust apple's iMessage a bit more especially after recent events. // edit: got my answer here: https://news.ycom
by pfg 11y ago
> From that perspective, I'm still inclined to trust apple's iMessage a bit more especially after recent events.
// edit: got my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11432629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11432629
I'm curious, is that because of what they did in the FBI case, or for technical reasons? IIRC iMessage would allow Apple to add public keys which they (or the FBI/$ADVERSARY) control as a sort-of backdoor as well. I can't say that I've been keeping track of Facebook's position or history on this topic, so it might or might not be fair to say that Apple deserves more trust here, but on a technical level there's not much of a difference.
- jd20 11y agoThe unfortunate reality too is that average users will never go to the extra trouble of authenticating keys themselves. I'm also more likely to trust a company like Apple or Google with key management than a "trusted third party" (simply because they're bigger companies, with more valuable brands to protect, and resources to throw at the problem). So, it feels like for the average consumer, a product like iMessage ticks all the necessary boxes. While WhatsApp adding features like the ability to compare your keys via a QR code looks cool, I have to wonder how many users will actually take advantage (and how would they even know if that number or QR code really represents what they think it does?)
- pfg 11y agoManual authentication via QR (or comparing the digits) works on top of the server-side authentication. It does what iMessage does, but you also have the option to actually compare the fingerprints if you are so inclined.
- nickik 11y agoThe good thing about verification is that if only a few people do it, it already profieds a benefit.