4 ms·

I think this is a valid critisism given that their selling point has been security, but as a practical matter is WhatsApp's encryption any better?

by paulgb 9y ago

idlewords 9y ago
Yes.
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
Very much so. It uses the Signal Protocol.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  WhatsApp had a severe vulnerability for groups disclosed not so long ago. Telegram has had no such vulnerabilities as far as I'm aware. This reinforced my impression that HN's mantra that "Telegram's encryption is bad" is more a personality cult to moxie than an informed opinion.
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    > WhatsApp had a severe vulnerability for groups disclosed not so long ago. It had a vulnerability, but not a severe one, and certainly not one that could be exploited silently or lead to retroactive message decryption. The vulnerability was: If you pwn the server, you can join a group without being invited, which means subsequent messages would be plaintext to you. However, everyone gets notified of a new arrival. > Telegram has had no such vulnerabilities as far as I'm aware. That's because Telegram doesn't encrypt groups or channels at all. > This reinforced my impression that HN's mantra that "Telegram's encryption is bad" is more a personality cult to moxie than an informed opinion. I don't particularly like Moxie, personally, but his work stands on its own merits. EDIT: Because the wording was ambiguous, I want to clarify: I don't particularly dislike Moxie, either. I'm neutral to his personality, largely due to a lack of personal interaction with the man.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      > The vulnerability was: If you pwn the server, you can join a group without being invited, which means subsequent messages would be plaintext to you. However, everyone gets notified of a new arrival. If to you owning server => accessing group is not severe, then you should be happy with Telegram's default encryption: it's run of the mill SSL by default, just not E2E. If you own their servers you can read people's conversations too.
      - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
        Accessing the group means: 1. Announcing your intrusion 2. Only being able to read what people say after you joined That's a far better security proposition than server operators being able to silently spy on everything you ever send.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      > I don't particularly like Moxie, personally, but his work stands on its own merits. I hear you. What I meant is that although I know the guy has an excellent reputation, I know that because I heard other people say. I don't really have the technical knowledge to evaluate it myself, and I suspect 99% of the people in HN are in the same position. Therefore, if I were to say "Signal's security is excellent" I would be falling for the cult of Moxie myself, not an informed opinion.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Wait a second. No. You just said, one message upthread, that a reason to pick Telegram was that WhatsApp had a "severe vulnerability for groups" that Telegram didn't have. Forget about the fact that the vulnerability might not have been "severe". Scott points out that you're offering security advice about what group messenger to use despite the fact that you're unaware --- like many people --- that Telegram doesn't encrypt group messages. Please acknowledge that this happened before continuing to offer more opinions about this subject.
        9y ago
tptacek 9y ago
As a theoretical matter, it's not even close; WhatsApp's Signal Protocol is literally decades more sophisticated than Telegram's, which traces back to just after the phlogiston era of cryptography. No practicing cryptographer or crypto engineer would ever select Telegram's protocol over WhatsApp's. As a practical matter, it's even starker. WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted by default, forward secure so that losing your phone doesn't let adversaries retroactively decrypt sniffed messages, and, most importantly, encrypted for groups. Telegram's messages are plaintext by default --- you have to opt conversations in to encryption! --- and don't encrypt group messages at all. Telegram plays a sneaky game where they tell users that all messages are encrypted because they use TLS. But, of course, so was AOL Instant Messenger.

I think this is a valid critisism given that their selling point has been security, but as a practical matter is WhatsApp's encryption any better?

by paulgb 9y ago

I think this is a valid critisism given that their selling point has been security, but as a practical matter is WhatsApp's encryption any better?

idlewords 9y ago

Yes.

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago

Very much so. It uses the Signal Protocol.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
WhatsApp had a severe vulnerability for groups disclosed not so long ago. Telegram has had no such vulnerabilities as far as I'm aware. This reinforced my impression that HN's mantra that "Telegram's encryption is bad" is more a personality cult to moxie than an informed opinion.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > WhatsApp had a severe vulnerability for groups disclosed not so long ago. It had a vulnerability, but not a severe one, and certainly not one that could be exploited silently or lead to retroactive message decryption. The vulnerability was: If you pwn the server, you can join a group without being invited, which means subsequent messages would be plaintext to you. However, everyone gets notified of a new arrival. > Telegram has had no such vulnerabilities as far as I'm aware. That's because Telegram doesn't encrypt groups or channels at all. > This reinforced my impression that HN's mantra that "Telegram's encryption is bad" is more a personality cult to moxie than an informed opinion. I don't particularly like Moxie, personally, but his work stands on its own merits. EDIT: Because the wording was ambiguous, I want to clarify: I don't particularly dislike Moxie, either. I'm neutral to his personality, largely due to a lack of personal interaction with the man.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > The vulnerability was: If you pwn the server, you can join a group without being invited, which means subsequent messages would be plaintext to you. However, everyone gets notified of a new arrival. If to you owning server => accessing group is not severe, then you should be happy with Telegram's default encryption: it's run of the mill SSL by default, just not E2E. If you own their servers you can read people's conversations too.
    - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
      Accessing the group means: 1. Announcing your intrusion 2. Only being able to read what people say after you joined That's a far better security proposition than server operators being able to silently spy on everything you ever send.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > I don't particularly like Moxie, personally, but his work stands on its own merits. I hear you. What I meant is that although I know the guy has an excellent reputation, I know that because I heard other people say. I don't really have the technical knowledge to evaluate it myself, and I suspect 99% of the people in HN are in the same position. Therefore, if I were to say "Signal's security is excellent" I would be falling for the cult of Moxie myself, not an informed opinion.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Wait a second. No. You just said, one message upthread, that a reason to pick Telegram was that WhatsApp had a "severe vulnerability for groups" that Telegram didn't have. Forget about the fact that the vulnerability might not have been "severe". Scott points out that you're offering security advice about what group messenger to use despite the fact that you're unaware --- like many people --- that Telegram doesn't encrypt group messages. Please acknowledge that this happened before continuing to offer more opinions about this subject.
      - 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

As a theoretical matter, it's not even close; WhatsApp's Signal Protocol is literally decades more sophisticated than Telegram's, which traces back to just after the phlogiston era of cryptography. No practicing cryptographer or crypto engineer would ever select Telegram's protocol over WhatsApp's. As a practical matter, it's even starker. WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted by default, forward secure so that losing your phone doesn't let adversaries retroactively decrypt sniffed messages, and, most importantly, encrypted for groups. Telegram's messages are plaintext by default --- you have to opt conversations in to encryption! --- and don't encrypt group messages at all. Telegram plays a sneaky game where they tell users that all messages are encrypted because they use TLS. But, of course, so was AOL Instant Messenger.