10 ms·
Telegram told to give encryption keys to Russian authorities
- yoavm 9y agoWell, if Telegram had end-to-end encryption enabled by default, this wouldn't even be technically possible.
- tandav 9y agothey haven't
- golergka 9y agoIt also would have had much worse usability in the most common case: when government agencies aren't a real risk factor, but you want conversations synced between different apps. Seriously, disregarding trade-off between security and usability is exactly how we ended up with very secure, 20-digit passwords, containing every possible unicode symbol, updated every Monday, written on post-it notes hanging on the wall.
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoKeybase handles the multi-device issue really, really well. I don't feel convinced at all that multi-device e2e encrypted messaging cannot be usable.
- leetbulb 9y agoWire is awesome. Keybase is like Wire, but for teams...it's amazing. Encrypted file system for personal, public, and individual teams, chat, git repos...oh boy!
- avhon1 9y agoXMPP + MAM (XEP-0313) + OMEMO (XEP-0384) provides end-to-end encryption and device synchronization.
- bitL 9y agoHow would this help if OS manufacturer or even baseband operator could read anything in your phone's memory remotely, including encryption keys?
- na85 9y agoThat's moving the goalposts. Pick a threat model and stick to it.
- avhon1 9y agoI agree with /u/na85. If you're worried about law enforcement or corporations sniffing keys out of your devices RAM, you have other things to worry about besides "what app should I use for communication"? If you're seriously worried about communicating without trusting your phone, then you either need to find communication devices you do trust, or else look into verifiable TRNGs [0], dumb serial printers that can be directly attached to RNGs [1], and either manual encryption/decryption algorithms [2] or one-time pads. [0]: https://archive.is/CGQkR https://archive.is/CGQkR [1]: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2146 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2146 [2]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/339.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/339.pdf
- bitL 9y agoI simply want real privacy, not an illusion of one. It's pointless to use any half-baked privacy approach when your device is compromised by design; who knows if the current mainstream becomes dissent in 20 years and people will be hanged because of their old communication logs? Thanks but no thanks.
- krick 9y agoPlease elaborate. I heard this "usability and chat history" stuff many times already, but I never understood it: it honestly sounds just like marketing bullshit. WhatsApp uses e2e and is quite usable as long as I'm concerned. If only group chats with more than 10 people (hell, I'm ok with 3, even 2, if that's necessary) would be non-encrypted by default — I would be fine with that.
- jakebasile 9y agoWhatsApp requires your phone (and it must be a phone) to be on and connected to WiFi, using battery, to use their desktop "app". This is terrible usability. WhatsApp doesn't have a native (or near native Qt app as Telegram does) on anything but phones. No tablets, no desktop OS. This is bad usability. If I sign in to a new device on Telegram (and it can be nearly any device), I can instantly have my entire message history available. This is what they mean by chat history. I no longer actively use Telegram, but only because no one else I know could be convinced to use it over Messenger. Messenger solves some of these problems but not all.
- morsch 9y agoWhatsApp requires your phone (and it must be a phone) to be on and connected to WiFi, using battery, to use their desktop "app". This is terrible usability. I can understand it'd be very annoying when you're affected -- eg having to work in an area with ethernet, but without wifi/3G, or when you need a fallback when the phone is out of battery. For the most part, it's a non-issue for me. Signal uses the same basic protocol and doesn't require the phone to be online all the time. Chances are the WhatsApp implementation chose a trade off that minimized confusion for less sophisticated users (within the constraints of maintaining confidentiality). That tends to be a good idea when you've got a billion users. If I sign in to a new device on Telegram ..., I can instantly have my entire message history available Including "secret chats"?
- jakebasile 9y ago> That tends to be a good idea when you've got a billion users. Telegram has a lot of users as well. It's a design choice for sure, but I disagree with it and it doesn't work for me personally. Their lack of support for anything but phones is my primary concern though - I could maybe stomach the requirement for my primary device to be online, but simply not making at least an iPad and preferably a macOS app is a no go for me. > Including "secret chats"? No, Telegram secret chats are device to device and can't be backed up or transferred. This is also why I rarely used them.
- DCKing 9y agoUgh, this keeps on coming up. Wire [1] already has both end-to-end encryption and cross device sync. It's not the only one to do that either. It's not a tradeoff. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)
- trisimix 9y agoIt also has a better user experience. And encryption enabled by default.
- melkhior 9y ago+1 for Wire from me, have been using it for about a year and a half now. I only wish it had a better desktop client, the current one is a little laggy especially when scrolling up chat history.
- petre 9y agoI use the web client and it works fibe. I suspect the desktop clients are Electron based.
- Mithaldu 9y agoThe last time i tried Wire its UX was about as stable as what a 12 year old would cobble together with old ducktape and string. Constantly exhibiting glitches and bugs and lacking even the most basic UI amenities as well as being a heavyweight browser app. Does Wire have a light-weight and solid desktop client yet?
- krageon 9y agoWire drains the battery of your phone so hard it's unusable in practice. There has been a bug report about this open since May 2017, with a note that "we're working on it". It hasn't been solved so far.
- avodonosov 9y agoEnd-to-end is supported https://telegram.org/faq#secret-chats https://telegram.org/faq#secret-chats
- coolspot 9y agoBTW does anyone know how Viber and WhatsApp (both are very popular there) operating in Russia? Do they cooperate?
- gagabity 9y agoWhatsApp cant cooperate by design they don't have the keys although they do have some metadata, not sure about Viber.
- mercora 9y agoMaybe they could provide access to the phones data though. In more or less the same way WhatsApp Web works.
- coolspot 9y agoMy understanding is that law requires backdoor access [111], you cannot just shrug it off as "we are end-to-end" encrypted. You must have a backdoor or not allowed to operate in Russia. [111] http://news.softpedia.com/news/russia-wants-encryption-backdoors-in-telegram-whatsapp-viber-others-505557.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/russia-wants-encryption-backd...
- mort96 9y agoHow do we know WhatsApp doesn't cooperate? It's closed source, and owned by Facebook no less, so how can we know there's no backdoor?
- gagabity 9y agoYou can analyse the traffic data being sent by the App, also there are third party Apps that work on the WhatsApp network.
- mort96 9y agoYou can maybe verify that the app doesn't currently send messages anywhere, but what if there's a way for Facebook to send a request to WhatsApp for a dump of all messages within a date range?
- dharma1 9y agoIf FSB really wants access - and sooner or later they will, as Telegram keeps growing... As long as Telegram founders still have family inside Russia, they are vulnerable
- prawn 9y agoCouldn't that be rephrased to "As long as Telegram founders still have family, they are vulnerable"?
- webkike 9y agoRussian ops can't even poison an expat without severe consequences, kidnapping or murdering people outside of Russia would be an act of war
- varjag 9y agoThey likely can, we learn only about the cases where it blows up.
- andy_boot 9y agoErrr, They (probably) did that a few weeks ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43443271 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43443271
- e40 9y agoYou've got to be kidding. The recent chemical weapon attack was done for the shock value, because they literally do not give AF about the consequences. It's Putin flexing on the world stage.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Russian ops can't even poison an expat without severe consequences Only because of the public backlash against the local government last time they were known to have poisoned someone in the same country without consequences. > kidnapping or murdering people outside of Russia would be an act of war It would, but that hasn't stopped them before.
- eitland 9y agoMore interestingly perhaps: Telegram as usually refuses to give encryption keys to anyone. While there seems to be a lot to say about Telegram crypto at least their priorities seems to be aligned with mine unlike WhatsApp that is owned by Facebook.
- ChristianBundy 9y agoWhy use Telegram over something actually secure like Signal?
- krick 9y agoSkipping discussion about "actual security": vendor lock-in & network effects. None of my peers uses Signal for everyday communication. Quite a few use Telegram, +Telegram channels & conferences, bots, and, well, honestly, it's really quite nice app to use. So, yeah. It's sad.
- zzzcpan 9y agoBut in fairness, you cannot really claim that Signal is actually secure just because it has a better encryption.
- krick 9y agoThat's why I chose to skip discussion about "actual security" in favor of answering the actual question somebody asked. I agree with your point completely.
- literallycancer 9y agoTrue. Then again, Telegram really has no encryption at all, since no one uses the secret chats. So he probably meant something like "why not use an app that actually tries to do what it claims to?".
- eitland 9y ago
- phyzome 9y agoI like that the article ends with the author's PGP fingerprint... and is served over plain HTTP. Bold move.
- ahelwer 9y agoThe personal intellectual highlight of my life was when I published my PGP fingerprint on my Wikipedia userpage.
- LinuxBender 9y agoThere has never been such a thing as end to end encryption on a cell phone. Carrier "debugging" tools such as CarierIQ hook at a lower level and can intercept and log everything that any application can see. CarrierIQ was acquired by AT&T and doesn't even officially have a name any more. They would tell you it only runs if the phone is in debug mode, but the dial home to the carrier can enable it via a simple header. Perhaps the difference here is that Russia does not have access to this data?
- krick 9y agoCould you please provide some home-reading material on the topic? I understand that the notion of "secure messenger" linked to your phone number and running on a phone is laughable, but it's the first time I hear accusations that my mobile operator can retrieve basically any info from my phone, like actually right now, without breaking a sweat. Does it apply to all mobile operators or only to american ones?
- LinuxBender 9y agoThere used to be a really good walk through and demo of the software on youtube, but it was pulled down. Perhaps someone has uploaded it again. I will see if I can find it. IIRC, these debugging tools exist on all carriers and each have their own custom implementations.
- snowpanda 9y agoIs it this one? https://youtube.com/watch?v=T17XQI_AYNo https://youtube.com/watch?v=T17XQI_AYNo
- LinuxBender 9y agoThat looks like part of it. :-)
- sli 9y agoNot just carriers, but police, too. One of StringRay/KingFish's functions is encryption key extraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
- Karrot_Kream 9y agoTelegram has publicly stated that they refuse to hand over their keys (though whether or not they will, time will tell). This is in contrast to FB, Google, and Twitter who have not released a statement about whether or not they will comply: http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-twitter-google-censorship-ban-russia-tech-dark-ages/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-twitter-google-censors...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aorth 9y agoRemember in 2013 when Lavabit said their email was so secure that even their sysadmins can't read it? And then, after the secret US government subpoena was made public it turned out that Lavabit's claim of "can't" was more like "won't". Better to not have to trust the intentions (or ability to resist torture, etc) of Telegram, Pavel Durov, et al. Better to have end-to-end encryption by default, like in Signal. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131002/17443624734/lavabit-tried-giving-feds-its-ssl-key-11-pages-4-point-type-feds-complained-that-it-was-illegible.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131002/17443624734/lavab...
- Shank 9y agoThe key in the article is a TLS key, not the keys that actually guarded the email contents. Lavabit shutdown after disclosing the TLS key. They couldn’t give up the actual storage keys because they weren’t stored. The courts wanted Lavabit to implement a mechanism to capture the keys during use, which they didn’t do.
- miaklesp 9y agoSignal and Telegram are in different categories. Signal is more secure in general due to end-to-end encryption but user experience is bad. I would use Signal when I really have something to fear very seriously, in this case personal security more important than usability. Telegram is much better made UX-wise. It's a more decent product for average user. It's a Facebook Messenger alternative which is secure enough and doesn't sell your data to anyone. If you are not security expert or journalist and black helicopters are not chaising you, you don't need Signal, Telegram is much better messenger with great clients on different platforms.
- shmerl 9y agoThis highlights the problem. Why should they have any keys? It should be end to end encryption, where users have the keys. Otherwise it's already insecure and no one should be using it. Government demanding something is just a symptom.
- parliament32 9y agoThis has been the chief complaint about Telegram, and the entire reason I've never even tried using it. As long as you're trusting the corp with your keys, you're just as secure as any other site that provides chat over HTTPS.
- Justsignedup 9y agoLet's be fair. WhatsApp is NOT any different. They may have Signal's encryption algo, but they still store effectively unencrypted messages in their servers. Because that is the only way to sync between devices when adding a new device. And also the only way for FB to data mine. So... Yeah bad reporting.
- bjoli 9y agoThat is not correct. WhatsApp syncs messages between devices (mobile client must be connected to the internet to use WhatsApp web on the desktop). They store undelivered, encrypted messages on the server.
- apeace 9y agoCorrect, this is part of the Signal protocol[1]. Specifically, this part is called Sesame[2]: > This document describes the Sesame algorithm for managing message encryption sessions in an asynchronous and multi-device setting. [1] https://www.signal.org/docs/ https://www.signal.org/docs/ [2] https://www.signal.org/docs/specifications/sesame/ https://www.signal.org/docs/specifications/sesame/
- Justsignedup 9y agoIf you are in private chat mode, this works well, because all devices have an encryption key. But if you are doing regular messages between people, those messages are certainly readable by the server and because adding a new device decrypts all previous messages, the server has decryption knowledge. Note: At each point in their sesame algorithm the user has a non-empty set of devices. So if you want to sync another device acts as a p2p syncer. What happens when you remove your last device and add another new one. Hence why whatsapp has a non-privacy mode. Or am I misunderstanding?
- bjoli 9y agoWhatsApp has no private chat mode. Every message is e2e encrypted. If you switch devices, other clients will use the old keys until they have received the new one (and then they will silently re-encrypt and resend undelivered messages, something WhatsApp was heavily criticized for).
- handbanana 9y agoNot 100% relevant to the article, but if anyone hasn't already given it a try - Signal is a great cross-platform messaging service. I don't understand why more people aren't using it
- cvaidya1986 9y agoEveryone is already using other messengers and do not understand or value encryption and privacy enough.
- MatthiasP 9y agoWhich shows how lucky we were that WhatsApp got such widespread adaption.
- cvaidya1986 9y agoOh did you work at WhatsApp?
- carlesfe 9y agoI just convinced my political discussion Whatsapp group to move to Signal. The client is not as polished, but works well, and we feel more comfortable sharing political opinions. I'd say it was worth the hassle.
- briandear 9y agoSignal is awesome. If know several people who work for a very large company that has their own chat/message system that actually use Signal instead — specifically for security reasons.
- andreagrandi 9y agoUnfortunately Signal doesn't have a desktop client (and no, Chrome apps don't count. They will be retired and unsupported too in the near future)
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]