4 ms·
Do you have sources for that? Because just looking at the first two you named the EFF (who marked WhatsApp down for being closed source). And the owner of the
by snowpanda 10y ago
Do you have sources for that? Because just looking at the first two you named the EFF (who marked WhatsApp down for being closed source).
And the owner of the Signal protocol (which is what WhatsApp uses). Obviously he's not going to argue against it.
- idlewords 10y agoThe full list is here: http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687 http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687
- schoen 10y agoEFF has criticized WhatsApp for being closed source, but not for this particular aspect of the key exchange functionality. Because of the history around how WhatsApp was criticism over this and some of the apparent results of that criticism, tptacek particularly doesn't want people to conflate "there is something bad, unfortunate, or inadequate about WhatsApp" with "WhatsApp has a 'backdoor' in its key exchange" (and I understand that!).
- WireWrap 10y ago> EFF has criticized WhatsApp for being closed source, but not for this particular aspect of the key exchange functionality. The articles I've seen appeared carefully worded so as to achieve some balance, but did express some criticism and concern. "Nevertheless, this is certainly a vulnerability of WhatsApp, and they should give users the choice to opt into more restrictive Signal-like defaults." from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/google-launches-key-transparency-while-tradeoff-whatsapp-called-backdoor https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/google-launches-key-tr... Key change notification concerns paragraph from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/10/where-whatsapp-went-wrong-effs-four-biggest-security-concerns https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/10/where-whatsapp-went-wr...
- schoen 10y agoThanks, that's a better way to put it. I should have phrased the distinction I was drawing more carefully.