3 ms·
It is in fact all messages. They can simply not deliver the first message and force a resend record that mesaage. Afterwards force again a resend with the old e
by foxylion 10y ago
It is in fact all messages. They can simply not deliver the first message and force a resend record that mesaage. Afterwards force again a resend with the old encryption key and deliver that mesaage. No one would get a notification.
- morsch 10y agoI can see how you would leave the receiver in the dark by sending them the original, deferred message, but how would asking the sender's device to resend with a different key not result in a notification? Furthermore, as soon as the sender attempts to deliver another message to the recipient, they would get another notification (because the encryption key changed back to the real key); alternatively the attacker could continue blocking (and reading) messages to the recipient, but the lack of delivery would be noticeable. You could escalate it into a MITM rather easily, though, by attacking both ends; but again, a key change notification should be displayed to both parties. Assuming the closed sourced app works as advertised, obviously.
- foxylion 10y agoYes, you are right. But I think most people did not enable the security option so they wouldn't detect any interception of messages.
- Johnny_Brahms 10y agoWell, what you are describing is a regular MITM attack. Unless you validate fingerprints, this is a risk with _all_ public key-based protocols.