7 ms·

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).
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > (you'd think the Telegram team would care more about that, considering where they come from) That assumes the Telegram team aren't part of the nation state apparatus, surely.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    Do you have any reason to assume they are? Of course, other than the fact that the founder is _RUSSIAN_ gasp
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      I don't assume they are. But equally I don't automatically assume they aren't, either.
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        You're just evading my point. Implicitely or explicitely you must have a _working_ hypothesis. When you make decisions, you must assume one or the other.
- ttsda 9y ago
  There is an optional two-factor login (phone+password).
hankhill 9y ago
This comment is so misleading and devoid of any information it should probably be removed.

False? Is it? I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to the criticisms that were posed about the security of Telegram.

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).

zimpenfish 9y ago
> (you'd think the Telegram team would care more about that, considering where they come from) That assumes the Telegram team aren't part of the nation state apparatus, surely.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  Do you have any reason to assume they are? Of course, other than the fact that the founder is _RUSSIAN_ gasp
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    I don't assume they are. But equally I don't automatically assume they aren't, either.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      You're just evading my point. Implicitely or explicitely you must have a _working_ hypothesis. When you make decisions, you must assume one or the other.
ttsda 9y ago
There is an optional two-factor login (phone+password).

hankhill 9y ago

This comment is so misleading and devoid of any information it should probably be removed.