4 ms·

Regular reminder that any time Telegram is mentioned on HN people pop out of the woodwork to launch a smear job against it because it isn't Signal. From 1: "We

Regular reminder that any time Telegram is mentioned on HN people pop out of the woodwork to launch a smear job against it because it isn't Signal. From 1: "We stress that this is a theoretical attack on the definition of security and we do not see any way of turning the attack into a full plaintext-recovery attack." The second paper is a huge wall of text that boils down to "the protocol is too hard to analyze and doesn't use what I have declared as crypto best practices, therefore I declare that it is insecure." There isn't, in either of these, any actual attacks showing any actual problems with the protocol. I'm really sick of people jumping down the throat of anyone who tries to use Telegram by declaring it as insecure without even the first whit of evidence. "This isn't best practice" != "This is insecure and you should never use it."

roywiggins 9y ago
When it comes to cryptography, I don't think the burden of proof is on the critics to prove it's insecure. Everything is best assumed to be insecure unless there's convincing evidence otherwise. I gather that there are enough experts in this sort of thing that aren't convinced that it seems fair to say it's insecure. Ex: If someone built a bridge, but wasn't an actual engineer, I would assume the bridge was unsafe. I don't need an engineer to actually inspect the bridge before I make that assumption, and I would probably tell everyone I knew not to use that bridge.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  When it comes to cryptography... then - like in a lot of other fields - it depends on your threat model. Point is: If your life or anything valuable really depends on provably strong encryption: you probably shouldn't use Telegram. My rule for WhatsApp (one of his recommendations) however is even simpler: I don't use it if I can avoid it.
  - thewhitetulip 9y ago
    It is highly ironic that those who careabout privacy suggest using whatsapp
    - jolux 9y ago
      Granted, it's owned by Facebook, but it's definitely better than Telegram and unlike Signal people actually use it. I try to get people to use Signal when I can but so many people already use WhatsApp and that counts for something too.
      - msl09 9y ago
        It's not just because it's owned by facebook. It's also because it's closed source which means that the floor can be removed from under your feet when you least expect and they can weaken the security whenever they like to make way for whatever social feature they want. In theory telegram is insecure because it doesn't follow the best tried standards in security even though no viable attack have been made. In theory whatsapp is secure because the last time a third party audited the source code no gross infringements existed. Almost every chat app is insecure next to signal but indeed the only merit of whatsapp is that it's popular in some countries.
        kasey_junk 9y ago
        > the only merit of whatsapp is that it's popular in some countries whatsapp has a fairly impressive set of merits that check lots of points for people who actually do security work: - uses a known and vetted protocol - protocol was implemented with help from known and competent security professionals - is supported by one of the most resourced and competent private security teams on the planet - is easy to drive uptake and has impressive network effects Its major drawback is that it shares metadata with facebook. This may or may not be a big deal to individual users, but on the balance its fairly easy to see why people recommend it. The closed source thing is largely not a consideration that comes up when you talk with professional security folks, and is a pretty obvious red herring when you think about it. [note: i'm not a security folk, but i have drinks with them occasionally. I don't use whatsapp or telegram and only very occasionally use signal]
        jolux 9y ago
        WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol though and its implementation was overseen by Moxie Marlinspike, the creator of Signal. >even though no viable attack have been made. All of these references to "in theory" obscure what's actually going on here. Signal is well known to be extremely secure and the code is well-audited. Moxie is a man of integrity and says that WhatsApp is similarly safe. That's worth a lot more than the statement that no viable attack against Telegram has been demonstrated. That's true of every system until it's not. Once you reach that point, you've already failed. If that's the best proof you can give of a system's security, you've failed as a security communicator.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's fine: use Wire instead. I think you actually have marginally more privacy on WhatsApp than on Wire, but they're comparable. You should treat Telegram the same way you treat AOL Instant Messenger. If you have friends on AOL IM, by all means use it to organize which bar you're going to meet up in tonight. But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger. Telegram is deeply unserious about security.
    - satsuma 9y ago
      Pretty much this. I use Telegram not because I think it's the most secure messenger, but because it's better than fucking Skype.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      If you have friends on AOL IM, by all means use it to organize which bar you're going to meet up in tonight. For all intents and purposes that is what most of us do. We share photos of smiling kids and messy homes. But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger. Totally fine. I already don't trust Telegrams crypto. I'm not saying it is secure, only it works really really well and isn't owned by a known evil entity who for some reason found it worth to pay 19B just to destroy the best messenger app I knew :-) Also remember: WhatsApp didn't have very good crypto before they changed their protocol.
      - unicornporn 9y ago
        > I'm not saying it is secure, only it works really really well and isn't owned by a known evil entity who for some reason found it worth to pay 19B just to destroy the best messenger app I knew :-) Isn't owned by a known evil entity? I think jury is still out on that. https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/ https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/
wglb 9y ago
Are you familiar with the BEAST attack on SSL/TLS? It was a flaw that was "theoretical" until the boys that broke the internet showed how it was done. So that was evidence that was ignored for ten years. So I wouldn't risk my life on something you claim has no evidence but professional crypto breakers warn about.

roywiggins 9y ago

When it comes to cryptography, I don't think the burden of proof is on the critics to prove it's insecure. Everything is best assumed to be insecure unless there's convincing evidence otherwise. I gather that there are enough experts in this sort of thing that aren't convinced that it seems fair to say it's insecure. Ex: If someone built a bridge, but wasn't an actual engineer, I would assume the bridge was unsafe. I don't need an engineer to actually inspect the bridge before I make that assumption, and I would probably tell everyone I knew not to use that bridge.

reitanqild 9y ago
When it comes to cryptography... then - like in a lot of other fields - it depends on your threat model. Point is: If your life or anything valuable really depends on provably strong encryption: you probably shouldn't use Telegram. My rule for WhatsApp (one of his recommendations) however is even simpler: I don't use it if I can avoid it.
- thewhitetulip 9y ago
  It is highly ironic that those who careabout privacy suggest using whatsapp
  - jolux 9y ago
    Granted, it's owned by Facebook, but it's definitely better than Telegram and unlike Signal people actually use it. I try to get people to use Signal when I can but so many people already use WhatsApp and that counts for something too.
    - msl09 9y ago
      It's not just because it's owned by facebook. It's also because it's closed source which means that the floor can be removed from under your feet when you least expect and they can weaken the security whenever they like to make way for whatever social feature they want. In theory telegram is insecure because it doesn't follow the best tried standards in security even though no viable attack have been made. In theory whatsapp is secure because the last time a third party audited the source code no gross infringements existed. Almost every chat app is insecure next to signal but indeed the only merit of whatsapp is that it's popular in some countries.
      - kasey_junk 9y ago
        > the only merit of whatsapp is that it's popular in some countries whatsapp has a fairly impressive set of merits that check lots of points for people who actually do security work: - uses a known and vetted protocol - protocol was implemented with help from known and competent security professionals - is supported by one of the most resourced and competent private security teams on the planet - is easy to drive uptake and has impressive network effects Its major drawback is that it shares metadata with facebook. This may or may not be a big deal to individual users, but on the balance its fairly easy to see why people recommend it. The closed source thing is largely not a consideration that comes up when you talk with professional security folks, and is a pretty obvious red herring when you think about it. [note: i'm not a security folk, but i have drinks with them occasionally. I don't use whatsapp or telegram and only very occasionally use signal]
      - jolux 9y ago
        WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol though and its implementation was overseen by Moxie Marlinspike, the creator of Signal. >even though no viable attack have been made. All of these references to "in theory" obscure what's actually going on here. Signal is well known to be extremely secure and the code is well-audited. Moxie is a man of integrity and says that WhatsApp is similarly safe. That's worth a lot more than the statement that no viable attack against Telegram has been demonstrated. That's true of every system until it's not. Once you reach that point, you've already failed. If that's the best proof you can give of a system's security, you've failed as a security communicator.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's fine: use Wire instead. I think you actually have marginally more privacy on WhatsApp than on Wire, but they're comparable. You should treat Telegram the same way you treat AOL Instant Messenger. If you have friends on AOL IM, by all means use it to organize which bar you're going to meet up in tonight. But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger. Telegram is deeply unserious about security.
  - satsuma 9y ago
    Pretty much this. I use Telegram not because I think it's the most secure messenger, but because it's better than fucking Skype.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    If you have friends on AOL IM, by all means use it to organize which bar you're going to meet up in tonight. For all intents and purposes that is what most of us do. We share photos of smiling kids and messy homes. But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger. Totally fine. I already don't trust Telegrams crypto. I'm not saying it is secure, only it works really really well and isn't owned by a known evil entity who for some reason found it worth to pay 19B just to destroy the best messenger app I knew :-) Also remember: WhatsApp didn't have very good crypto before they changed their protocol.
    - unicornporn 9y ago
      > I'm not saying it is secure, only it works really really well and isn't owned by a known evil entity who for some reason found it worth to pay 19B just to destroy the best messenger app I knew :-) Isn't owned by a known evil entity? I think jury is still out on that. https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/ https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/

wglb 9y ago

Are you familiar with the BEAST attack on SSL/TLS? It was a flaw that was "theoretical" until the boys that broke the internet showed how it was done. So that was evidence that was ignored for ten years. So I wouldn't risk my life on something you claim has no evidence but professional crypto breakers warn about.