5 ms·

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 c

by 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.
      - acct1771 9y ago
        "I really don't think most users are worried" is the stark OPPOSITE of speaking for yourself.
    - throwaway-hn123 9y ago
      he literally was speaking for himself, you ignorant, rude cunt.
    - lloeki 9y ago
      While I do find such features convenient, more importantly to me they draw people to a more secure and privacy conscious messaging platform than the ultra-popular alternatives all the while allowing to upgrade to E2E† on demand. Signal completely fails in that regard, as the number of contacts (actual or potential) on it is precisely zero for me.
    - jamesb93 9y ago
      And you're very welcome to use something that fits your threat model.
  - calgoo 9y ago
    I really don't understand the "hate" for Telegram on HN. I understand that its not (allegedly) as secure as signal for example, but like you said, state actors etc have other ways of getting that info (see xkcd [1]). I personally use Telegram when talking to my wife because it lets me have a client on every platform i use and the messages follow me. I could do that with some of the other platforms as well, but im already on this platform, the wife is on the platform, and some other family members as well. Now would it be better if it was "more" secure? Of course it could, I mean, we could all be communicating with PGP as well, but most people don't because its a pain to use. So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. As a added bonus, using the bot framework that Telegram offers, i have started creating a home automation bot. The framework is really fun and easy to use. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. Same. I tried Signal a couple of years ago but the iOS app was prone to crashing, corrupting messages, and just plain losing words. Not really what you want. > The framework is really fun and easy to use. Yeah, I've done a couple of bots for it and it's pretty handy.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Telegram for me is the right trade off between security and convenience.
- negus 9y ago
  Ok. Lets see https://medium.com/@wireapp/making-your-conversations-secure-dab207ab77fd https://medium.com/@wireapp/making-your-conversations-secure... does not state any information on key management solution: how encryption key is transferred to another device. But it has links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm which has nothing about cross device key sharing and https://wire.com/resource/Wire%20Security%20Whitepaper/download/ https://wire.com/resource/Wire%20Security%20Whitepaper/downl.... I've read it through and found nothing on cross-device key sharing as well. Can you point me to the right part?
  - DCKing 9y ago
    I'm flattered you assume I have this knowledge, but I don't. I would presume the key is derived from your sign-in information, but I honestly don't know. What I do know is that you don't have access to messages that happened before you first signed in to the device you're using. My message history is complete on the phone I created my Wire account on, but I installed it on a laptop a few days later and as such is missing those first days. Messages get delivered to all your active devices without problem though. The source code for all their different client varieties (iOS, Android, Web/Electron) and server software can be found here if you're interested [0]. [0]: https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp
- jhasse 9y ago
  > the fact that you chat history exists in plain text on Telegram servers. Source? https://telegram.org/blog/sessions-and-2-step-verification https://telegram.org/blog/sessions-and-2-step-verification says: "It allows you to set up a password that will be required every time you log into your account from a new device – in addition to the code you get in the SMS. Be careful though: if you forget this password, you won't be able to access your messages from other devices." This sounds to me that the chat history is encrypted with the password which doesn't leave my devices and therefore I'm not able to recover the history if I lose it. Since all clients are open-source, it should be possible to verify this. edit: Okay the option for a recovery email could mean that they still have the password (or a key derived of it) on their servers - so basically plain-text.
lloeki 9y ago
> cross-device message history sharing by default, which is not possible in case of e2e, without key transferring iMessage does that† (is that what you mean by "key transferring"?). I wish it could display the device key fingerprints somewhere, allow for key pinning, as well as offline key exchange between parties though††. † in fact history is not centrally shared: messages are encrypted and published once per receiving device by the sender. †† And be cross-platform. But the optimist in me says it's to control the security experience while the cynical in me says it's about network effects (although mitigated by SMS integration) for commercial reasons.

by 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.
    - acct1771 9y ago
      "I really don't think most users are worried" is the stark OPPOSITE of speaking for yourself.
  - throwaway-hn123 9y ago
    he literally was speaking for himself, you ignorant, rude cunt.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    While I do find such features convenient, more importantly to me they draw people to a more secure and privacy conscious messaging platform than the ultra-popular alternatives all the while allowing to upgrade to E2E† on demand. Signal completely fails in that regard, as the number of contacts (actual or potential) on it is precisely zero for me.
  - jamesb93 9y ago
    And you're very welcome to use something that fits your threat model.
- calgoo 9y ago
  I really don't understand the "hate" for Telegram on HN. I understand that its not (allegedly) as secure as signal for example, but like you said, state actors etc have other ways of getting that info (see xkcd [1]). I personally use Telegram when talking to my wife because it lets me have a client on every platform i use and the messages follow me. I could do that with some of the other platforms as well, but im already on this platform, the wife is on the platform, and some other family members as well. Now would it be better if it was "more" secure? Of course it could, I mean, we could all be communicating with PGP as well, but most people don't because its a pain to use. So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. As a added bonus, using the bot framework that Telegram offers, i have started creating a home automation bot. The framework is really fun and easy to use. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. Same. I tried Signal a couple of years ago but the iOS app was prone to crashing, corrupting messages, and just plain losing words. Not really what you want. > The framework is really fun and easy to use. Yeah, I've done a couple of bots for it and it's pretty handy.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Telegram for me is the right trade off between security and convenience.
negus 9y ago
Ok. Lets see https://medium.com/@wireapp/making-your-conversations-secure-dab207ab77fd https://medium.com/@wireapp/making-your-conversations-secure... does not state any information on key management solution: how encryption key is transferred to another device. But it has links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm which has nothing about cross device key sharing and https://wire.com/resource/Wire%20Security%20Whitepaper/download/ https://wire.com/resource/Wire%20Security%20Whitepaper/downl.... I've read it through and found nothing on cross-device key sharing as well. Can you point me to the right part?
- DCKing 9y ago
  I'm flattered you assume I have this knowledge, but I don't. I would presume the key is derived from your sign-in information, but I honestly don't know. What I do know is that you don't have access to messages that happened before you first signed in to the device you're using. My message history is complete on the phone I created my Wire account on, but I installed it on a laptop a few days later and as such is missing those first days. Messages get delivered to all your active devices without problem though. The source code for all their different client varieties (iOS, Android, Web/Electron) and server software can be found here if you're interested [0]. [0]: https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp
jhasse 9y ago
> the fact that you chat history exists in plain text on Telegram servers. Source? https://telegram.org/blog/sessions-and-2-step-verification https://telegram.org/blog/sessions-and-2-step-verification says: "It allows you to set up a password that will be required every time you log into your account from a new device – in addition to the code you get in the SMS. Be careful though: if you forget this password, you won't be able to access your messages from other devices." This sounds to me that the chat history is encrypted with the password which doesn't leave my devices and therefore I'm not able to recover the history if I lose it. Since all clients are open-source, it should be possible to verify this. edit: Okay the option for a recovery email could mean that they still have the password (or a key derived of it) on their servers - so basically plain-text.

lloeki 9y ago

> cross-device message history sharing by default, which is not possible in case of e2e, without key transferring iMessage does that† (is that what you mean by "key transferring"?). I wish it could display the device key fingerprints somewhere, allow for key pinning, as well as offline key exchange between parties though††. † in fact history is not centrally shared: messages are encrypted and published once per receiving device by the sender. †† And be cross-platform. But the optimist in me says it's to control the security experience while the cynical in me says it's about network effects (although mitigated by SMS integration) for commercial reasons.