8 ms·

Ironically, Telegram markets itself as the most private and secure messenger, but in reality, it's much less private than WhatsApp or Viber: any regular (non-se

Ironically, Telegram markets itself as the most private and secure messenger, but in reality, it's much less private than WhatsApp or Viber: any regular (non-secret) Telegram chats are not end-to-end encrypted - if they were, you wouldn't be able to access them from a new device after authorization with a password.

freeflight 7y ago
To add to the irony: Telegram has evolved in a bit of a darknet on its own where people casual share content that would be near impossible to find on the surface web.
- x220 7y ago
  how do I get in on this?
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    First rule of fight club
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      Tell all your friends while pretending that it's a secret?
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    Install the telegram app, register, and use the search button to find whatever it is that you want to. It isn't darknet in terms of anonymity; its wildnet in terms of content.
kome 7y ago
they are not end-to-end encrypted but they are encrypted. Also, I read that WhatsApp is going to switch to the same mode, for user convenience: https://bgr.com/2019/07/29/whatsapp-update-to-bring-multi-platform-accounts-ipad-mac-android/ https://bgr.com/2019/07/29/whatsapp-update-to-bring-multi-pl...
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Oh, come on! If Telegram can decrypt chats for a user, they can decrypt it if they really want. Any other kind of encryption is irrelevant - from third party attackers, tls works good enough.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    Yeh "endpoint security" is hard. You need some trusted specialized hardware or network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption#Endpoint_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption#Endpoint...
    - maqp 7y ago
      Dealing with the endpoint security is a really tough problem but I have a pet-project that pushes the price per endpoint just below $500 https://github.com/maqp/tfc https://github.com/maqp/tfc
dijit 7y ago
They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though. You make it sound as if there is a revelation you made here. Telegram has faults, I would even argue it has many, but it’s clear that only “secret” chats and voice/video calls are end to end encrypted. Whatsapp, however, does allow you to download all of your messages from your device using WhatsApp web, and they were recently shown to have an exploit/backdoor in the applications themselves. So in that context they’re comparable in my opinion.
- gaius_baltar 7y ago
  > They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though. You make it sound as if there is a revelation you made here. They don't claim e2e encryption by default, they just use some very tricky words that non-technical users will assume as encryption. From telegram.org: "Private: Telegram messages are heavily encrypted and can self-destruct." "Secure: Telegram keeps your messages safe from hacker attacks." "Encrypt personal and business secrets."
- austhrow743 7y ago
  Whatsapp also doesn't encrypt backups to icloud, which it nags you to turn on.
  - ggus 7y ago
    Also google backups on android are not encrypted. that's so bad on so many levels... : (
- maqp 7y ago
  "They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though." They don't have to. The amount of my peers (i.e. who also major in CS) who think Telegram is more secure than e.g. WhatsApp, is staggering. People don't really think about the protocol, they only think what they hear on the news, or what their buddies think who have heard it in the news. And what they hear is "Telegram, the new encrypted messaging app, blah bah..." and then they hear debate "Apple.. Encryption.. LEA can't read messages". So the incorrectly count 1+1=3 and think Telegram is safe against LEA. When you're online and you try to point out Telegram uses home-brew protocol, EXACTLY the same security architecture as Facebook (TLS), and that both are created by Mark Zuckerbergs of separate nations, you'll very quickly drown in fanboys / sock puppets that come with following arguments "WELL TELEGRAM'S ENCRYPTION HAS NOT BEEN BROKEN IN THE WILD NOW HAS IT???" (no need when you can hack the server and read practically everything) or "NOT TRUE TELEGRAM HAS SECRET CHATS" (which only works between mobile clients, and one-on-one chats, just like Facebook Messenger's opt-in end-to-end encryption. Like this one guy on the internet I talked to so eloquently put it: "I don't use secret chats because when I open my laptop, I want to type with my keyboard and not take out my phone every time I want to reply") or "PAVEL DUROV ABANDONED MOTHER RUSSIA TO BRING YOU THIS SECURITY" (which tells you absolutely nothing about the protocol and is no proof of any motivation towards any direction. When you're as rich as Durov you can choose any other country in the world and I suspect Dubai isn't treating him too badly). or "DUROV REFUSED BACKDOOR SO THERE IS NO WAY TO GET USER DATA" (which is simply not true, it's not like government agents can't hack servers, if Durov could deliver such systems, he'd be making five figure hourly wage hardening Fortune500 companies' systems)
mlindner 7y ago
Telegram is not at all secure, the only real secure product is Signal, which is what Snowden actually recommended.
- newscracker 7y ago
  I continue harping on this point often. The usability, reliability and feature set of Signal are far behind Telegram or WhatsApp. If you want a platform that sometimes works, may be slow in delivering messages, may send false “device changed” notifications, and doesn’t allow a way to backup and restore chats (on iOS), then Signal is the one. If you don’t like any of these deficiencies, then Signal is the last thing to suggest. There’s no point using a so called “secure messenger” if it’s going to numb users to accept device change notifications without out of the band verification because the app and platform are buggy to generate those when nothing has changed. Yes, this is anecdotal, but I don’t trust that Signal promotes security or secure messaging practices. Instead, use Matrix (with end to end encryption enabled) or Wire.
  - maqp 7y ago
    Matrix is not usable as it is: 1. Bikeshedding has lead to reduction in security agility: Any change will have to be first implemented for the protocol, then to SDKs, then to clients. This progress can take years. 2. Riot is the only client that delivers proper E2EE, majority of clients don't feature it. 3. E2EE is still not enabled by default. 4. IRC-bridges will break E2EE 5. Decentralization does break large silos and make less tempting targets, but now you have a bunch of server admins who have personal relationships with the people the content (when not end-to-end encrypted), and the metadata (always) of which they have access to. 6. Riot's key management and fingerprint verification has been a nightmare. Thankfully this is about to change. Until all of these are are fixed, i.e. Until all clients enforce E2EE, until the protocol design is safe enough, until client vendors are required to keep up with security, until no bridges are allowed, until fingerprints are trivial to compare, I will not, and I think no one should Matrix.
nostrademons 7y ago
This marketing message always confused me: my techie understanding was that Telegram is actually one of the least secure messaging choices. If you want security, my understanding is that your preferences should go Signal, Whatsapp, iMessage, Hangouts or whatever Google's flavor-of-the-month messaging app is these days, Telegram, and Facebook.
- pkulak 7y ago
  I was following you until Hangouts...
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Google's security is still better than both Telegram's or Facebook's. It's not great, but that's why it's #4 on a list of 6. If you care significantly about privacy & security I would not use anything worse than iMessage, and even that's borderline. (Your opinion of whether Google or Telegram is better will likely also depend upon whether you think malice or incompetence is a bigger threat. Google's business model relies upon it snooping on you, but they have really, really good security people ensuring that nobody else snoops on you. Meanwhile Telegram has less of incentive to actively violate your privacy, but they may let other parties violate your privacy by passively fucking up their engineering. They've done stuff like roll their own crypto algorithms, which is a terrible no-no for anyone that cares about security.)
    - samtheprogram 7y ago
      How is iMessage worse versus Hangouts? Is Hangouts even end-to-end encrypted? IIRC it isn’t, neither is Google Chat (a product which is replacing Hangouts from what I can tell), just Allo and Duo.
      - girvo 7y ago
        That’s not what they said; they’ve said that iMessage has better security than Hangouts, and that this user wouldn’t use anything “worse” ie. further down on their list than iMessage
conradev 7y ago
I wouldn’t loop backups into that criteria. iMessage syncs your message history to all of your devices in an end to end encrypted way: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 and WhatsApp allows user to backup/restore their messages with iCloud (unencrypted)
- newscracker 7y ago
  Glaringly, Signal still doesn’t have a way to backup and restore chats on iOS.
newscracker 7y ago
Accessing chats from a new device has no technical relation (or constraint) to the lack of end to end encryption. Wire encrypts all chats end to end, and still provides syncing conversations to multiple devices on multiple operating systems. It does limit the sync to the last 30 days, but that’s mostly because of cost reasons rather than technical reasons. Edit/correction: Neither Wire nor Signal sync conversations that have happened before the setup of a new device to the new device.
- maqp 7y ago
  Signal also features multi-device end-to-end encryption. This non-technical argument feels more and more a shill talking point because the claimed constraint is NEVER provided with technical arguments. However, it feels intuitive to non-techies: "End-to-end means only one end and I have many devices therefore I have many ends so I can't end-to-end with every end, so better not end-to-end..."
- godelski 7y ago
  Is it syncing through a centralized server or are they synced between devices?
- Darth_Hobo 7y ago
  If you can view your old conversation from a fresh installation on a new devices then this automatically implies that some 3rd party has access to your keys. I.e. your conversion cannot be considered truly private.
  - tsbertalan 7y ago
    No it doesn't. The sync could be device-to-device, or it could be encrypted in it's storage on the intervening server, and require that the user provide secrets on the new device.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    It can also imply syncing over an end to end encrypted (and verified, using QR codes at setup) channel between the devices being synchronised. I believe this is what signal does, for example.
richthegeek 7y ago
Are you saying that when you log into Telegram on a new phone it downloads the chat logs from somewhere? And that this only requires a short password? At best this'd mean the logs are encrypted using the password as the key... Are you sure the user isn't copying anything between devices? Chat logs and a keyfile maybe?
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Well that DO have an optional 2factor auth, and yes, they definitely DON'T copy any keys between devices (like WhatsApp does when launching a web version).
pingyong 7y ago
>if they were, you wouldn't be able to access them from a new device after authorization with a password. Telegram isn't great but if your password was used to derive the encryption key, that feature would be entirely feasible.

freeflight 7y ago

To add to the irony: Telegram has evolved in a bit of a darknet on its own where people casual share content that would be near impossible to find on the surface web.

x220 7y ago
how do I get in on this?
- dvtrn 7y ago
  First rule of fight club
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Tell all your friends while pretending that it's a secret?
- ignoramous 7y ago
  Install the telegram app, register, and use the search button to find whatever it is that you want to. It isn't darknet in terms of anonymity; its wildnet in terms of content.

kome 7y ago

they are not end-to-end encrypted but they are encrypted. Also, I read that WhatsApp is going to switch to the same mode, for user convenience: https://bgr.com/2019/07/29/whatsapp-update-to-bring-multi-platform-accounts-ipad-mac-android/ https://bgr.com/2019/07/29/whatsapp-update-to-bring-multi-pl...

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Oh, come on! If Telegram can decrypt chats for a user, they can decrypt it if they really want. Any other kind of encryption is irrelevant - from third party attackers, tls works good enough.
- tantalor 7y ago
  Yeh "endpoint security" is hard. You need some trusted specialized hardware or network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption#Endpoint_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption#Endpoint...
  - maqp 7y ago
    Dealing with the endpoint security is a really tough problem but I have a pet-project that pushes the price per endpoint just below $500 https://github.com/maqp/tfc https://github.com/maqp/tfc

dijit 7y ago

They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though. You make it sound as if there is a revelation you made here. Telegram has faults, I would even argue it has many, but it’s clear that only “secret” chats and voice/video calls are end to end encrypted. Whatsapp, however, does allow you to download all of your messages from your device using WhatsApp web, and they were recently shown to have an exploit/backdoor in the applications themselves. So in that context they’re comparable in my opinion.

gaius_baltar 7y ago
> They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though. You make it sound as if there is a revelation you made here. They don't claim e2e encryption by default, they just use some very tricky words that non-technical users will assume as encryption. From telegram.org: "Private: Telegram messages are heavily encrypted and can self-destruct." "Secure: Telegram keeps your messages safe from hacker attacks." "Encrypt personal and business secrets."
austhrow743 7y ago
Whatsapp also doesn't encrypt backups to icloud, which it nags you to turn on.
- ggus 7y ago
  Also google backups on android are not encrypted. that's so bad on so many levels... : (
maqp 7y ago
"They don’t claim end to end encryption by default though." They don't have to. The amount of my peers (i.e. who also major in CS) who think Telegram is more secure than e.g. WhatsApp, is staggering. People don't really think about the protocol, they only think what they hear on the news, or what their buddies think who have heard it in the news. And what they hear is "Telegram, the new encrypted messaging app, blah bah..." and then they hear debate "Apple.. Encryption.. LEA can't read messages". So the incorrectly count 1+1=3 and think Telegram is safe against LEA. When you're online and you try to point out Telegram uses home-brew protocol, EXACTLY the same security architecture as Facebook (TLS), and that both are created by Mark Zuckerbergs of separate nations, you'll very quickly drown in fanboys / sock puppets that come with following arguments "WELL TELEGRAM'S ENCRYPTION HAS NOT BEEN BROKEN IN THE WILD NOW HAS IT???" (no need when you can hack the server and read practically everything) or "NOT TRUE TELEGRAM HAS SECRET CHATS" (which only works between mobile clients, and one-on-one chats, just like Facebook Messenger's opt-in end-to-end encryption. Like this one guy on the internet I talked to so eloquently put it: "I don't use secret chats because when I open my laptop, I want to type with my keyboard and not take out my phone every time I want to reply") or "PAVEL DUROV ABANDONED MOTHER RUSSIA TO BRING YOU THIS SECURITY" (which tells you absolutely nothing about the protocol and is no proof of any motivation towards any direction. When you're as rich as Durov you can choose any other country in the world and I suspect Dubai isn't treating him too badly). or "DUROV REFUSED BACKDOOR SO THERE IS NO WAY TO GET USER DATA" (which is simply not true, it's not like government agents can't hack servers, if Durov could deliver such systems, he'd be making five figure hourly wage hardening Fortune500 companies' systems)

mlindner 7y ago

Telegram is not at all secure, the only real secure product is Signal, which is what Snowden actually recommended.

newscracker 7y ago
I continue harping on this point often. The usability, reliability and feature set of Signal are far behind Telegram or WhatsApp. If you want a platform that sometimes works, may be slow in delivering messages, may send false “device changed” notifications, and doesn’t allow a way to backup and restore chats (on iOS), then Signal is the one. If you don’t like any of these deficiencies, then Signal is the last thing to suggest. There’s no point using a so called “secure messenger” if it’s going to numb users to accept device change notifications without out of the band verification because the app and platform are buggy to generate those when nothing has changed. Yes, this is anecdotal, but I don’t trust that Signal promotes security or secure messaging practices. Instead, use Matrix (with end to end encryption enabled) or Wire.
- maqp 7y ago
  Matrix is not usable as it is: 1. Bikeshedding has lead to reduction in security agility: Any change will have to be first implemented for the protocol, then to SDKs, then to clients. This progress can take years. 2. Riot is the only client that delivers proper E2EE, majority of clients don't feature it. 3. E2EE is still not enabled by default. 4. IRC-bridges will break E2EE 5. Decentralization does break large silos and make less tempting targets, but now you have a bunch of server admins who have personal relationships with the people the content (when not end-to-end encrypted), and the metadata (always) of which they have access to. 6. Riot's key management and fingerprint verification has been a nightmare. Thankfully this is about to change. Until all of these are are fixed, i.e. Until all clients enforce E2EE, until the protocol design is safe enough, until client vendors are required to keep up with security, until no bridges are allowed, until fingerprints are trivial to compare, I will not, and I think no one should Matrix.

nostrademons 7y ago

This marketing message always confused me: my techie understanding was that Telegram is actually one of the least secure messaging choices. If you want security, my understanding is that your preferences should go Signal, Whatsapp, iMessage, Hangouts or whatever Google's flavor-of-the-month messaging app is these days, Telegram, and Facebook.

pkulak 7y ago
I was following you until Hangouts...
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Google's security is still better than both Telegram's or Facebook's. It's not great, but that's why it's #4 on a list of 6. If you care significantly about privacy & security I would not use anything worse than iMessage, and even that's borderline. (Your opinion of whether Google or Telegram is better will likely also depend upon whether you think malice or incompetence is a bigger threat. Google's business model relies upon it snooping on you, but they have really, really good security people ensuring that nobody else snoops on you. Meanwhile Telegram has less of incentive to actively violate your privacy, but they may let other parties violate your privacy by passively fucking up their engineering. They've done stuff like roll their own crypto algorithms, which is a terrible no-no for anyone that cares about security.)
  - samtheprogram 7y ago
    How is iMessage worse versus Hangouts? Is Hangouts even end-to-end encrypted? IIRC it isn’t, neither is Google Chat (a product which is replacing Hangouts from what I can tell), just Allo and Duo.
    - girvo 7y ago
      That’s not what they said; they’ve said that iMessage has better security than Hangouts, and that this user wouldn’t use anything “worse” ie. further down on their list than iMessage

conradev 7y ago

I wouldn’t loop backups into that criteria. iMessage syncs your message history to all of your devices in an end to end encrypted way: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 and WhatsApp allows user to backup/restore their messages with iCloud (unencrypted)

newscracker 7y ago
Glaringly, Signal still doesn’t have a way to backup and restore chats on iOS.

newscracker 7y ago

Accessing chats from a new device has no technical relation (or constraint) to the lack of end to end encryption. Wire encrypts all chats end to end, and still provides syncing conversations to multiple devices on multiple operating systems. It does limit the sync to the last 30 days, but that’s mostly because of cost reasons rather than technical reasons. Edit/correction: Neither Wire nor Signal sync conversations that have happened before the setup of a new device to the new device.

maqp 7y ago
Signal also features multi-device end-to-end encryption. This non-technical argument feels more and more a shill talking point because the claimed constraint is NEVER provided with technical arguments. However, it feels intuitive to non-techies: "End-to-end means only one end and I have many devices therefore I have many ends so I can't end-to-end with every end, so better not end-to-end..."
godelski 7y ago
Is it syncing through a centralized server or are they synced between devices?
Darth_Hobo 7y ago
If you can view your old conversation from a fresh installation on a new devices then this automatically implies that some 3rd party has access to your keys. I.e. your conversion cannot be considered truly private.
- tsbertalan 7y ago
  No it doesn't. The sync could be device-to-device, or it could be encrypted in it's storage on the intervening server, and require that the user provide secrets on the new device.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  It can also imply syncing over an end to end encrypted (and verified, using QR codes at setup) channel between the devices being synchronised. I believe this is what signal does, for example.

richthegeek 7y ago

Are you saying that when you log into Telegram on a new phone it downloads the chat logs from somewhere? And that this only requires a short password? At best this'd mean the logs are encrypted using the password as the key... Are you sure the user isn't copying anything between devices? Chat logs and a keyfile maybe?

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Well that DO have an optional 2factor auth, and yes, they definitely DON'T copy any keys between devices (like WhatsApp does when launching a web version).

pingyong 7y ago

>if they were, you wouldn't be able to access them from a new device after authorization with a password. Telegram isn't great but if your password was used to derive the encryption key, that feature would be entirely feasible.