8 ms·

Telegram has a poor security record, with homegrown encryption algorithms and no end to end encryption by default.

lloeki 9y ago
While I am wary of "build-your-own-crypto", saying it has a poor security record is, to my knowledge so far, incorrect. I have yet to see satisfactory cryptanalysis that shows a weakness (theoretical or real) in the protocol. If anything, it seems to withstand scrutiny so far. Even the dedicated security.se.com question[0] seems like it wraps itself in tautologies. Until then, throwing the "homegrown encryption" argument to argue for Telegram's weakness is hand-waving and a straw man. Telegram's security is sufficient for the threat model I have to face against now and in the future. [0]: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegram-secure https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegr...
- saurik 9y ago
  FWIW, four years ago, the HN zeitgeist considered the cryptography blunders made by Telegram, when conbined with their hubris over how their protocol was clearly perfect, a death knell for the company from which they would never recover. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6948742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6948742
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    Indeed, I've been attacked and modded to oblivion on here for mentioning that I use Telegram, and the scope wasn't even security related, just an alternative to email for sending non-sensitive photos. I've found Telegram to be more than good enough for day to day communications where I would previously have used email or SMS/MMS.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      So is Signal and at least that is secure.
      - morganvachon 9y ago
        And once again, if I need that kind of security I'll seek it out. Telegram is more secure than email and SMS, and more convenient for my use case.
        jamesb93 9y ago
        Signal is not feature rich and harder to get people to use. It also lacks the desktop/laptop integration.
        nkristoffersen 9y ago
        Signal has desktop apps now https://signal.org/download/ https://signal.org/download/
        cosarara97 9y ago
        How do they compare to the telegram desktop client? Are they electron apps?
        mashedvikings 9y ago
        Telegram is exactly as secure as email. SSL where third party email servers can see your traffic.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        Signal is missing too many convenient features though, e.g. editing messages.
        24gttghh 9y ago
        Why should one be able to edit a message after it is sent in a text-chat app?
- bjoli 9y ago
  Well, to me the whole thing is about a couple of things: When Telegram first launched, people were reading their crypto whitepaper and going "Whoa, this is weird. You should probably not be doing it like this", and the reply was "Well, our 6 world champion coders (did you win a coding world championship?) think it is nice. Deal with it". They then launched a bullshit crypto challenge (which would have been secure even using crypto primitives we _know_ are insecure). People told them that wasn't how it was done. They replied something cocky about world champion coders. A couple of months later, someone found an gaping hole where the server could MITM every newly started secret chat (which their hack for forward secrecy a couple of years later would have made possible for every 100 messages). I think their attitude towards encrypted messaging hasn't left puberty yet, and I recommend against it for everyone looking for a secure messenger. For anyone looking for a more convenient whatsapp without caring much for privacy by default, I don't mind recommending Telegram. Regarding your future threat model: I certainly can't say whether having a copy of a significant chunk of my private communication on a server in Russia is a future threat to me. On the other hand, I don't use any social media, and have proper data retention policies on most of my online communications.
  - ComodoHacker 9y ago
    >having a copy of a significant chunk of my private communication on a server in Russia To be fair, Telegram doesn't have servers in Russia.
- mashedvikings 9y ago
  "I have yet to see satisfactory cryptanalysis that shows a weakness (theoretical or real) in the protocol": https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
negus 9y ago
Can you mention something more specific, than suspicion to "homegrown encryption algorithms" that is just a yet another combination of DH-RSA-AES ?
- mashedvikings 9y ago
  https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
negus 9y ago
And by the way, "no end to end encryption by default" -- is intentional tradeoff for cross-device message history sharing by default, which is not possible in case of e2e, without key transferring
- DCKing 9y ago
  I use a messaging service called Wire that does E2E, cross device messaging history by default (up to 6 devices), using very friendly, familiar UX - you only need to sign in on your device. It might have been an intentional tradeoff when Telegram came out, but it's not any more. It's not a great defense for the fact that you chat history exists in plain text on Telegram servers.
  - Anon1096 9y ago
    Well for me, I prefer the way telegram has decided to handle end to end encryption. Let's face it - me and my friends have no use for it, and never will. Our threat model just doesn't really care about actors like the NSA hacking us. If they wanted there's tons of other ways to get our information any (like Google or Facebook accounts). But not being encrypted gives us features not possible otherwise, like url prefetching from the server or (when telegram was released, I guess it can be done now) accessing the chat from as many devices as you want. Yes, there is a tradeoff, but really I don't think most users are worried, nor should they be.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      Speak for yourself. I care about privacy, and I couldn't give a shit about something so minor as link prefetching. I suspect I'm far from alone.
      - bollockitis 9y ago
        Anon1096 clearly stated that he was speaking for himself (or herself) but I agree with him: I want privacy but I don't necessarily need complete secrecy. This isn't a zero sum game: Telegram and Signal can coexist and serve different needs.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
You're just repeating something that you read on HN. Entirely false.
- andrepd 9y ago
  False? Is it? I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to the criticisms that were posed about the security of Telegram.
- detaro 9y ago
  Not entirely false, no. It does not have end-to-end encryption by default, and not at all for group chats, and the cryptography is a bigger unknown than with others.
  - danudey 9y ago
    > It does not have end-to-end encryption by default That doesn't mean it "has a poor security record" (implying that the security is broken), it means it is not as secure as other options. > not at all for group chats May not be a requirement for group chats > the cryptography is a bigger unknown than with others Unknown does not mean bad, it means unknown. Almost definitely worse than Signal, but almost definitely better than Facebook Messenger. To say Telegram is less secure than e.g. Signal is true. To say it "has a poor security record" is disingenuous and misleading. Once Telegram has had several security breaches, then that would be a fair phrase. Until then, there are levels of security for given threat models, and Telegram's is not as secure as others', by design.
    - mashedvikings 9y ago
      Quoting Moxie: THere's nothing to be broken because there's no end-to-end encryption to begin with. Do you think nation state hackers publish their finding about the trove of private messages telegram's vast server complex holds indefinitely? hahahahaha
- mtgx 9y ago
  Are they allowing you to have accounts that don't depend on your phone number yet? I think last I checked you could only login with your phone number, which I consider extremely insecure, especially against a nation state agent (you'd think the Telegram team would care more about that, considering where they come from - and in fact, I believe there were some reports of Russian government hacking people like this with the help of national carriers, too).
tpush 9y ago
Very few people use Telegram because of its security. Literally nobody of my contacts even uses the secret chat feature. They didn’t care when WhatsApp introduced e2e either. People(IME at least) use Telegram(or WhatsApp) because it’s a nice to use app, both mobile and desktop.
- kitsunesoba 9y ago
  Yes, the best thing about Telegram is that it doesn’t treat the desktop as an afterthought. Its desktop clients are first class true native apps, not be usual hot mess of half baked web/electron things that are offered to desktop users these days.

While I am wary of "build-your-own-crypto", saying it has a poor security record is, to my knowledge so far, incorrect. I have yet to see satisfactory cryptanalysis that shows a weakness (theoretical or real) in the protocol. If anything, it seems to withstand scrutiny so far. Even the dedicated security.se.com question[0] seems like it wraps itself in tautologies. Until then, throwing the "homegrown encryption" argument to argue for Telegram's weakness is hand-waving and a straw man. Telegram's security is sufficient for the threat model I have to face against now and in the future. [0]: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegram-secure https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegr...

saurik 9y ago
FWIW, four years ago, the HN zeitgeist considered the cryptography blunders made by Telegram, when conbined with their hubris over how their protocol was clearly perfect, a death knell for the company from which they would never recover. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6948742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6948742
- morganvachon 9y ago
  Indeed, I've been attacked and modded to oblivion on here for mentioning that I use Telegram, and the scope wasn't even security related, just an alternative to email for sending non-sensitive photos. I've found Telegram to be more than good enough for day to day communications where I would previously have used email or SMS/MMS.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    So is Signal and at least that is secure.
    - morganvachon 9y ago
      And once again, if I need that kind of security I'll seek it out. Telegram is more secure than email and SMS, and more convenient for my use case.
      - jamesb93 9y ago
        Signal is not feature rich and harder to get people to use. It also lacks the desktop/laptop integration.
        nkristoffersen 9y ago
        Signal has desktop apps now https://signal.org/download/ https://signal.org/download/
        cosarara97 9y ago
        How do they compare to the telegram desktop client? Are they electron apps?
      - mashedvikings 9y ago
        Telegram is exactly as secure as email. SSL where third party email servers can see your traffic.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Signal is missing too many convenient features though, e.g. editing messages.
      - 24gttghh 9y ago
        Why should one be able to edit a message after it is sent in a text-chat app?
bjoli 9y ago
Well, to me the whole thing is about a couple of things: When Telegram first launched, people were reading their crypto whitepaper and going "Whoa, this is weird. You should probably not be doing it like this", and the reply was "Well, our 6 world champion coders (did you win a coding world championship?) think it is nice. Deal with it". They then launched a bullshit crypto challenge (which would have been secure even using crypto primitives we _know_ are insecure). People told them that wasn't how it was done. They replied something cocky about world champion coders. A couple of months later, someone found an gaping hole where the server could MITM every newly started secret chat (which their hack for forward secrecy a couple of years later would have made possible for every 100 messages). I think their attitude towards encrypted messaging hasn't left puberty yet, and I recommend against it for everyone looking for a secure messenger. For anyone looking for a more convenient whatsapp without caring much for privacy by default, I don't mind recommending Telegram. Regarding your future threat model: I certainly can't say whether having a copy of a significant chunk of my private communication on a server in Russia is a future threat to me. On the other hand, I don't use any social media, and have proper data retention policies on most of my online communications.
- ComodoHacker 9y ago
  >having a copy of a significant chunk of my private communication on a server in Russia To be fair, Telegram doesn't have servers in Russia.
mashedvikings 9y ago
"I have yet to see satisfactory cryptanalysis that shows a weakness (theoretical or real) in the protocol": https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

negus 9y ago

Can you mention something more specific, than suspicion to "homegrown encryption algorithms" that is just a yet another combination of DH-RSA-AES ?

mashedvikings 9y ago
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

negus 9y ago

And by the way, "no end to end encryption by default" -- is intentional tradeoff for cross-device message history sharing by default, which is not possible in case of e2e, without key transferring

DCKing 9y ago
I use a messaging service called Wire that does E2E, cross device messaging history by default (up to 6 devices), using very friendly, familiar UX - you only need to sign in on your device. It might have been an intentional tradeoff when Telegram came out, but it's not any more. It's not a great defense for the fact that you chat history exists in plain text on Telegram servers.
- Anon1096 9y ago
  Well for me, I prefer the way telegram has decided to handle end to end encryption. Let's face it - me and my friends have no use for it, and never will. Our threat model just doesn't really care about actors like the NSA hacking us. If they wanted there's tons of other ways to get our information any (like Google or Facebook accounts). But not being encrypted gives us features not possible otherwise, like url prefetching from the server or (when telegram was released, I guess it can be done now) accessing the chat from as many devices as you want. Yes, there is a tradeoff, but really I don't think most users are worried, nor should they be.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Speak for yourself. I care about privacy, and I couldn't give a shit about something so minor as link prefetching. I suspect I'm far from alone.
    - bollockitis 9y ago
      Anon1096 clearly stated that he was speaking for himself (or herself) but I agree with him: I want privacy but I don't necessarily need complete secrecy. This isn't a zero sum game: Telegram and Signal can coexist and serve different needs.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

You're just repeating something that you read on HN. Entirely false.

andrepd 9y ago
False? Is it? I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to the criticisms that were posed about the security of Telegram.
detaro 9y ago
Not entirely false, no. It does not have end-to-end encryption by default, and not at all for group chats, and the cryptography is a bigger unknown than with others.
- danudey 9y ago
  > It does not have end-to-end encryption by default That doesn't mean it "has a poor security record" (implying that the security is broken), it means it is not as secure as other options. > not at all for group chats May not be a requirement for group chats > the cryptography is a bigger unknown than with others Unknown does not mean bad, it means unknown. Almost definitely worse than Signal, but almost definitely better than Facebook Messenger. To say Telegram is less secure than e.g. Signal is true. To say it "has a poor security record" is disingenuous and misleading. Once Telegram has had several security breaches, then that would be a fair phrase. Until then, there are levels of security for given threat models, and Telegram's is not as secure as others', by design.
  - mashedvikings 9y ago
    Quoting Moxie: THere's nothing to be broken because there's no end-to-end encryption to begin with. Do you think nation state hackers publish their finding about the trove of private messages telegram's vast server complex holds indefinitely? hahahahaha
mtgx 9y ago
Are they allowing you to have accounts that don't depend on your phone number yet? I think last I checked you could only login with your phone number, which I consider extremely insecure, especially against a nation state agent (you'd think the Telegram team would care more about that, considering where they come from - and in fact, I believe there were some reports of Russian government hacking people like this with the help of national carriers, too).

tpush 9y ago

Very few people use Telegram because of its security. Literally nobody of my contacts even uses the secret chat feature. They didn’t care when WhatsApp introduced e2e either. People(IME at least) use Telegram(or WhatsApp) because it’s a nice to use app, both mobile and desktop.

kitsunesoba 9y ago
Yes, the best thing about Telegram is that it doesn’t treat the desktop as an afterthought. Its desktop clients are first class true native apps, not be usual hot mess of half baked web/electron things that are offered to desktop users these days.