4 ms·
> It had a vulnerability, but not a severe one The problem I have with WhatsApp is not a question of vulnerabilities, it's a problem of trust in ownership of t
by lloeki 9y ago
> It had a vulnerability, but not a severe one
The problem I have with WhatsApp is not a question of vulnerabilities, it's a problem of trust in ownership of the app's code. There's no way I would ever trust Facebook with anything sensitive enough to require the Signal protocol because the endpoints might be compromised at some point straight from the app itself.
- idlewords 9y agoWhat is the scenario in which Facebook subverts end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp by pushing out a malicious update?
- Crespyl 9y agoFacebook decides that "their users are better served" by scanning messages locally on the client device and requesting ads based on that content, thereby introducing a privacy and information leak and potentially opening the door to other problems. I don't necessarily think that's likely, but it's also not entirely implausible that they would do something, intentionally or not, that subverts the threat model/privacy assumptions of its users. Facebook's interests are not aligned with users when it comes to privacy.
- idlewords 9y agoBut in that scenario, the change would be announced. I'm asking about the malicious case.
- Crespyl 9y agoDoes Facebook always detail their tracking and analytics platform updates? In any case, my point is that it doesn't need to be malicious for FB to invalidate the privacy expectations that users of encrypted messaging might have. If it was malicious, they already control the client code and therefore have access to the plaintext anyway.