8 ms·

By default it's no more encrypted than HN (as in, traffic to their servers uses TLS, messages on the server are not encrypted at all). There's Secret Chats fea

By default it's no more encrypted than HN (as in, traffic to their servers uses TLS, messages on the server are not encrypted at all). There's Secret Chats feature which they claim to be end-to-end encrypted, meaning that it's no more secure than Facebook's Messenger (also end-to-end encrypted in Secret Conversations). Even less so considering that they roll their own encryption (MTProto), while Facebook's Messenger uses Signal's protocol. Further info (which will also lead you to problems with their MTProto protocol, if you're interested): https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegram-secure https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegr...

ConsiderCrying 6y ago
Can we stop using 6-year-old info for apps that get updated monthly? The problems they have with MTProto have been patched literally 5 years ago, the only other criticism comes from a direct competitor, and they recommend WhatsApp despite the fact that it's closed-source and nobody can verify if its encryption truly works. Facebook is planning to merge Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram, which makes it even more awful of a choice.
- input_sh 6y ago
  Fair point, but from my perspective, even if it was absolutely the best end-to-end encryption there is, it wouldn't mean much unless everyone's using Telegram for 1-to-1 communication using Secret Chats feature. > Some of its channels helped unconnected, scattered rallies mature into well-coordinated action. This line alone makes their encryption rather meaningless for this use case, since Secret Chats only work between two people.
  - skyyler 6y ago
    Which is why I'm confused people are even talking about their encryption in this thread. This has nothing to do with secure chats and everything to do with Telegram's Channels feature. But a ton of people that have never used Telegram nor read the article don't know that.
    - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
      And proxies. Telegram has great proxy support and virtually anyone can install their own MTProxy in 5 min. A multitude of proxies, shadow optic cables over the border and a bit of whitelisting from the government to allow payment processing made Telegram invincible.
      - maqp 6y ago
        Where is their MTProxy tutorial?
        sam_lowry_ 6y ago
        https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/MTProxy https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/MTProxy
- heinrich5991 6y ago
  Telegram still doesn't encrypt chats end to end (by default¹), which means it's not a strictly superior choice to WhatsApp. Facebook can't read your WhatsApp messages (of course they can add an update any time to do that), but Telegram has access to all your messages right now. ¹ Yes, you can select the end-to-end encrypted sessions, but they're very crippled from a usability perspective. I don't remember the last time anyone used it with me, yet all my chats on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted without anyone doing anything.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Can’t Facebook read most people’s WhatsApp messages because cloud backups of chats are enabled by default, and only the tiny minority of users who disable that feature will get truly end-to-end encryption?
    - heinrich5991 6y ago
      No, that's not true as far as I'm aware. The backup is to Google, not Facebook.
  - ConsiderCrying 6y ago
    > Facebook can't read your WhatsApp messages Are we sure it can't? Because WhatsApp is closed-source, its GDrive backups are unencrypted and Facebook's whole profit model is based around snooping. Unless they make the app open-source, I'm not trusting them even with a grocery list. People act like E2E is the be-all and end-all but trusting an incredibly shady company on its word is not something I'm comfortable with.
    - heinrich5991 6y ago
      Yes, people are reverse engineering the app. You can check the discussions on HackerNews when security of WhatsApp is discussed. GDrive backups are not readable by Facebook, they're readable by Google. End-to-end, if properly implemented is the be-all and end-all. Except for metadata, which is a problem, but a different one, and Facebook definitely abuses that. But they don't/can't read the contents of chat messages (for now). It's not merely trusting that shady company, but also realizing that the news of FB not having E2E-encrypted messages would definitely make the news, you'd be aware of it.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I don't see the problem of using a hand-rolled encryption algorithm or the strange choices that went into that algorithm as "patched literally 5 years ago".
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > The problems they have with MTProto have been patched literally 5 years ag Really? I haven't seen a single credible audit, nor a clear reason for rolling their own
- maqp 6y ago
  "Can we stop using 6-year-old info for apps that get updated monthly?" The fact Telegram's E2EE has not been available 1. by default 2. on desktop apps 3. for group messages for seven years tells you exactly how secure it is. "the only other criticism comes from a direct competitor" Fuck this attitude. Everyone has the right to criticize. If Telegram can't own their mistakes it's their fault, not that of the people who are beating them. Also, impartial professional cryptographers like Bruce Schneier and Matthew Green have told people not to use Telegram. Why is that if not because it's so horribly insecure. Why isn't there a single recommendation for Telegram from ANY cryptographer on the entire planet? "they recommend WhatsApp despite the fact that it's closed-source and nobody can verify if its encryption truly works." Because they've helped implement the encryption? Also if proprietary tools doing encryption are not secure, then why do Telegram users think it's ok for Telegram to use closed-source server that's doing the "distributed datacenter encryption" for group messages' at-rest protection. There's not even documentation available for this let alone source code.
DavideNL 6y ago
> There's Secret Chats feature But secret chats are only for 1-to-1 chats, not for groups as far as I know (or has that changed?)
- ConsiderCrying 6y ago
  Nope, hasn't changed and it's one of the things on my "feature wishlist". Really hope they add for at least small chats.
- BTCOG 6y ago
  Correct. What anyone in an oppressive regime could do though is to make sure settings are set to "share your phone number with no one," as well as delete their own messages from the channel in their entirety after having been read 15-30 min later or whatever arbitrary time they'd like. They would do best to not use an @username or account name which could identify them. Beyond that, there's no way anyone in Belarus can do a thing besides physical violence and take an individual's or a group of people's phones. There are also options for invite only channels ( I manage several TG channels, public and private) in which nobody can join without having been given the invite link, or added to the channel if their settings permit other users adding them to channels.
diimdeep 6y ago
And how is Signal's protocol is not "roll their own" ? Sorry I don't know.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The Signal Protocol[0] is based on OTR, a technology which had already seen a number of implementations and informed scrutiny by the time Signal came along. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
  - godelski 6y ago
    Also an important aspect is that it is open sourced, meaning others can audit it. I'm a little untrusting of people that say "trust me" but also "no, you can't look at it." (unless there is a good reason to hide it, which in this case I do not believe there is)
    - jhasse 6y ago
      MTproto is also open source.
      - godelski 6y ago
        Thank you for updating. For those curious this is what I found looking for the source https://github.com/tdlib/td/tree/80c35676a2eb1e9b71db355ee217bba79fbdce31/td/mtproto https://github.com/tdlib/td/tree/80c35676a2eb1e9b71db355ee21...
    - maqp 6y ago
      The thing is, there's nothing to audit. The world's best audit of Telegram would make the following obvious findings: 1. It's not E2EE by default therefore it's not private and secure by default. 2. It's not E2EE at all for groups therefore it's not safe for use of dissident groups 3. It's not E2EE at all for desktop clients therefore it's not practical in daily messaging. Any audit of the E2EE part is meaningless when E2EE is so impractical it's not used by users at all.
BTCOG 6y ago
This is all information in bad faith. The protocol and all Telegram is open source. Are you a cryptographer? And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself?
- input_sh 6y ago
  > ...and all Telegram is open source. This is demonstrably false. Telegram's apps are open sourced (except Telegram X for some reason), same as Signal's (no exceptions). None of the two offer you their server's code. > And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself? It passed the scrutiny of the best cryptographers out there. This comment provides more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24237791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24237791 And again, this is completely irrelevant because even if Telegram's end-to-end encryption was absolutely the best there is, a) it doesn't work on group chats, and b) it's not enabled by default, only in Secret Chats. The vast majority of Telegram's usage is not end-to-end encrypted at all.
  - maqp 6y ago
    "None of the two offer you their server's code." Signal server source code: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server "The vast majority of Telegram's usage is not end-to-end encrypted at all." This. This is the backdoor right here. It was never going to be shady flaw in the implementation. It's SO much easier to put it out there in the open, spread misinformation about Telegram being at the forefront of privacy battle and silence all criticism (my links were shadowbanned on their subreddit), and to attack straw men like people posting example's of Telegram's bad track record. tl;dr: damage control.
- maqp 6y ago
  The protocol and all Telegram is open source. The open source Telegram client tells us 1. That E2EE is not enabled by default 2. That E2EE is not available at all for group chats 3. That E2EE is not available at all for desktop clients. So just. No. "Are you a cryptographer?" Here's the world's most famous cryptographer, Bruce Schneier saying don't use Telegram: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_messa.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_mes... Here's the world's second most famous cryptographer, Matthew Green saying don't use Telegram https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/726428912968982529 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/72642891296898252... Now show me the cryptographer who recommends Telegram. You can't. Because there isn't _any_. "And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself?" No, it was co-authored with Trevor Perrin[1] who is a cryptographer. [1] https://twitter.com/trevp__ https://twitter.com/trevp__ Telegram's encryption OTOH was designed by Nikolai Durov who is not a cryptographer, but a geometrician. That's like asking a gynecologist to perform brain surgery, lol.

ConsiderCrying 6y ago

Can we stop using 6-year-old info for apps that get updated monthly? The problems they have with MTProto have been patched literally 5 years ago, the only other criticism comes from a direct competitor, and they recommend WhatsApp despite the fact that it's closed-source and nobody can verify if its encryption truly works. Facebook is planning to merge Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram, which makes it even more awful of a choice.

input_sh 6y ago
Fair point, but from my perspective, even if it was absolutely the best end-to-end encryption there is, it wouldn't mean much unless everyone's using Telegram for 1-to-1 communication using Secret Chats feature. > Some of its channels helped unconnected, scattered rallies mature into well-coordinated action. This line alone makes their encryption rather meaningless for this use case, since Secret Chats only work between two people.
- skyyler 6y ago
  Which is why I'm confused people are even talking about their encryption in this thread. This has nothing to do with secure chats and everything to do with Telegram's Channels feature. But a ton of people that have never used Telegram nor read the article don't know that.
  - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
    And proxies. Telegram has great proxy support and virtually anyone can install their own MTProxy in 5 min. A multitude of proxies, shadow optic cables over the border and a bit of whitelisting from the government to allow payment processing made Telegram invincible.
    - maqp 6y ago
      Where is their MTProxy tutorial?
      - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
        https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/MTProxy https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/MTProxy
heinrich5991 6y ago
Telegram still doesn't encrypt chats end to end (by default¹), which means it's not a strictly superior choice to WhatsApp. Facebook can't read your WhatsApp messages (of course they can add an update any time to do that), but Telegram has access to all your messages right now. ¹ Yes, you can select the end-to-end encrypted sessions, but they're very crippled from a usability perspective. I don't remember the last time anyone used it with me, yet all my chats on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted without anyone doing anything.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Can’t Facebook read most people’s WhatsApp messages because cloud backups of chats are enabled by default, and only the tiny minority of users who disable that feature will get truly end-to-end encryption?
  - heinrich5991 6y ago
    No, that's not true as far as I'm aware. The backup is to Google, not Facebook.
- ConsiderCrying 6y ago
  > Facebook can't read your WhatsApp messages Are we sure it can't? Because WhatsApp is closed-source, its GDrive backups are unencrypted and Facebook's whole profit model is based around snooping. Unless they make the app open-source, I'm not trusting them even with a grocery list. People act like E2E is the be-all and end-all but trusting an incredibly shady company on its word is not something I'm comfortable with.
  - heinrich5991 6y ago
    Yes, people are reverse engineering the app. You can check the discussions on HackerNews when security of WhatsApp is discussed. GDrive backups are not readable by Facebook, they're readable by Google. End-to-end, if properly implemented is the be-all and end-all. Except for metadata, which is a problem, but a different one, and Facebook definitely abuses that. But they don't/can't read the contents of chat messages (for now). It's not merely trusting that shady company, but also realizing that the news of FB not having E2E-encrypted messages would definitely make the news, you'd be aware of it.
saagarjha 6y ago
I don't see the problem of using a hand-rolled encryption algorithm or the strange choices that went into that algorithm as "patched literally 5 years ago".
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> The problems they have with MTProto have been patched literally 5 years ag Really? I haven't seen a single credible audit, nor a clear reason for rolling their own
maqp 6y ago
"Can we stop using 6-year-old info for apps that get updated monthly?" The fact Telegram's E2EE has not been available 1. by default 2. on desktop apps 3. for group messages for seven years tells you exactly how secure it is. "the only other criticism comes from a direct competitor" Fuck this attitude. Everyone has the right to criticize. If Telegram can't own their mistakes it's their fault, not that of the people who are beating them. Also, impartial professional cryptographers like Bruce Schneier and Matthew Green have told people not to use Telegram. Why is that if not because it's so horribly insecure. Why isn't there a single recommendation for Telegram from ANY cryptographer on the entire planet? "they recommend WhatsApp despite the fact that it's closed-source and nobody can verify if its encryption truly works." Because they've helped implement the encryption? Also if proprietary tools doing encryption are not secure, then why do Telegram users think it's ok for Telegram to use closed-source server that's doing the "distributed datacenter encryption" for group messages' at-rest protection. There's not even documentation available for this let alone source code.

DavideNL 6y ago

> There's Secret Chats feature But secret chats are only for 1-to-1 chats, not for groups as far as I know (or has that changed?)

ConsiderCrying 6y ago
Nope, hasn't changed and it's one of the things on my "feature wishlist". Really hope they add for at least small chats.
BTCOG 6y ago
Correct. What anyone in an oppressive regime could do though is to make sure settings are set to "share your phone number with no one," as well as delete their own messages from the channel in their entirety after having been read 15-30 min later or whatever arbitrary time they'd like. They would do best to not use an @username or account name which could identify them. Beyond that, there's no way anyone in Belarus can do a thing besides physical violence and take an individual's or a group of people's phones. There are also options for invite only channels ( I manage several TG channels, public and private) in which nobody can join without having been given the invite link, or added to the channel if their settings permit other users adding them to channels.

diimdeep 6y ago

And how is Signal's protocol is not "roll their own" ? Sorry I don't know.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The Signal Protocol[0] is based on OTR, a technology which had already seen a number of implementations and informed scrutiny by the time Signal came along. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
- godelski 6y ago
  Also an important aspect is that it is open sourced, meaning others can audit it. I'm a little untrusting of people that say "trust me" but also "no, you can't look at it." (unless there is a good reason to hide it, which in this case I do not believe there is)
  - jhasse 6y ago
    MTproto is also open source.
    - godelski 6y ago
      Thank you for updating. For those curious this is what I found looking for the source https://github.com/tdlib/td/tree/80c35676a2eb1e9b71db355ee217bba79fbdce31/td/mtproto https://github.com/tdlib/td/tree/80c35676a2eb1e9b71db355ee21...
  - maqp 6y ago
    The thing is, there's nothing to audit. The world's best audit of Telegram would make the following obvious findings: 1. It's not E2EE by default therefore it's not private and secure by default. 2. It's not E2EE at all for groups therefore it's not safe for use of dissident groups 3. It's not E2EE at all for desktop clients therefore it's not practical in daily messaging. Any audit of the E2EE part is meaningless when E2EE is so impractical it's not used by users at all.

BTCOG 6y ago

This is all information in bad faith. The protocol and all Telegram is open source. Are you a cryptographer? And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself?

input_sh 6y ago
> ...and all Telegram is open source. This is demonstrably false. Telegram's apps are open sourced (except Telegram X for some reason), same as Signal's (no exceptions). None of the two offer you their server's code. > And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself? It passed the scrutiny of the best cryptographers out there. This comment provides more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24237791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24237791 And again, this is completely irrelevant because even if Telegram's end-to-end encryption was absolutely the best there is, a) it doesn't work on group chats, and b) it's not enabled by default, only in Secret Chats. The vast majority of Telegram's usage is not end-to-end encrypted at all.
- maqp 6y ago
  "None of the two offer you their server's code." Signal server source code: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server "The vast majority of Telegram's usage is not end-to-end encrypted at all." This. This is the backdoor right here. It was never going to be shady flaw in the implementation. It's SO much easier to put it out there in the open, spread misinformation about Telegram being at the forefront of privacy battle and silence all criticism (my links were shadowbanned on their subreddit), and to attack straw men like people posting example's of Telegram's bad track record. tl;dr: damage control.
maqp 6y ago
The protocol and all Telegram is open source. The open source Telegram client tells us 1. That E2EE is not enabled by default 2. That E2EE is not available at all for group chats 3. That E2EE is not available at all for desktop clients. So just. No. "Are you a cryptographer?" Here's the world's most famous cryptographer, Bruce Schneier saying don't use Telegram: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_messa.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_mes... Here's the world's second most famous cryptographer, Matthew Green saying don't use Telegram https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/726428912968982529 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/72642891296898252... Now show me the cryptographer who recommends Telegram. You can't. Because there isn't _any_. "And who "rolled" the Signal protocol, Moxie Marlinspike? Did he not design that himself?" No, it was co-authored with Trevor Perrin[1] who is a cryptographer. [1] https://twitter.com/trevp__ https://twitter.com/trevp__ Telegram's encryption OTOH was designed by Nikolai Durov who is not a cryptographer, but a geometrician. That's like asking a gynecologist to perform brain surgery, lol.