4 ms·

Your comment is misleading: Telegram is open source (Desktop, iOS, Android), but the server isn't. It would certainly be nice to run your own Telegram server, s

by jdu9 6y ago

Your comment is misleading: Telegram is open source (Desktop, iOS, Android), but the server isn't. It would certainly be nice to run your own Telegram server, sure. IMHO the only good argument against Telegram is that direct messages don't use end-to-end encryption by default.

input_sh 6y ago
...except Telegram X, their alternative Android client. > IMHO the only good argument against Telegram is that direct messages don't use end-to-end encryption by default. I'd add two more: 1. End-to-end encryption being device-specific. Example: if you start a secret chat from your phone, you can't view it on your other devices. Other end-to-end encrypted solutions don't have this drawback. 2. End-to-end encryption being available only in one-to-one communications. Take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think it's available at all in group chats and channels.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  taken individually, these all seem like minor nitpicks. but together, they make for a pretty high-friction E2E experience on telegram. the first time I try to have a "secret chat" with someone, it's often the first time they realize that telegram isn't E2E by default or that it even has that feature! I have to wonder about the design decisions made here. it seems pretty obvious that the combination of limitations is going to result in the vast majority of messages not being E2E. in practice, "secret chat" on telegram is only worth the trouble when both participants understand they are doing something shady.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    For me device-limited E2E is actually a feature as I'm sure that no kind of weird sync stuff will leak my data from the device.
- eznzt 6y ago
  Also, E2E chats are not available on the desktop version of Telegram.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ffpip 6y ago
  Telegram X is made by a different unofficial dev. Telegram has an open API. You can build your own clients.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    It's published by Telegram LLC on Google Play. Can't be more official than Telegram itself distributing it.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      Telegram's official dev account is 'Telegram FZ-LLC'. https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Telegram+FZ-LLC https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Telegram+FZ-... Telegram X is not the official version.It is an unofficial client for testing design and app speed. It has a different UI
ivanbakel 6y ago
In what way is the comment misleading? While "Telegram" might refer to "the Telegram app" or "the Telegram service", when talking about open-source, it nearly always refers to the service. Of the two, the source of the central server is arguably much more important, since it's possible to at least track if the app tries to exfiltrate any data.
- eznzt 6y ago
  The source of the central server is useless since if they release it there is no way to prove they are running the same software on their servers.
  - ivanbakel 6y ago
    The source isn't "useless", it allows you to run your own server.
    - romwell 6y ago
      Yeah, and then you need to modify the client to use that server, have everyone you communicate with install that client, and also not brand it as "Signal" because it has nothing to do with the Signal network anymore, and you can't communicate with "regular" Signal users. So, from the point of view of anyone using the Signal service, the utility of the source is near-useless.
  - NateEag 6y ago
    Signal has a fascinating blog post from 2017 about how to use Intel's Software Guard Extensions (SGX) to actually let clients confirm that the software they're communicating with is the exact version they expect it to be. https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ SGX is definitely not bulletproof (https://medium.com/@maniacbolts/signal-increases-their-reliance-on-sgx-f46378f336d3 https://medium.com/@maniacbolts/signal-increases-their-relia...), but it exists to do exactly this job, and Signal is using it.
- leetcrew 6y ago

by jdu9 6y ago

input_sh 6y ago

...except Telegram X, their alternative Android client. > IMHO the only good argument against Telegram is that direct messages don't use end-to-end encryption by default. I'd add two more: 1. End-to-end encryption being device-specific. Example: if you start a secret chat from your phone, you can't view it on your other devices. Other end-to-end encrypted solutions don't have this drawback. 2. End-to-end encryption being available only in one-to-one communications. Take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think it's available at all in group chats and channels.

leetcrew 6y ago
taken individually, these all seem like minor nitpicks. but together, they make for a pretty high-friction E2E experience on telegram. the first time I try to have a "secret chat" with someone, it's often the first time they realize that telegram isn't E2E by default or that it even has that feature! I have to wonder about the design decisions made here. it seems pretty obvious that the combination of limitations is going to result in the vast majority of messages not being E2E. in practice, "secret chat" on telegram is only worth the trouble when both participants understand they are doing something shady.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  For me device-limited E2E is actually a feature as I'm sure that no kind of weird sync stuff will leak my data from the device.
eznzt 6y ago
Also, E2E chats are not available on the desktop version of Telegram.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ffpip 6y ago
Telegram X is made by a different unofficial dev. Telegram has an open API. You can build your own clients.
- input_sh 6y ago
  It's published by Telegram LLC on Google Play. Can't be more official than Telegram itself distributing it.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    Telegram's official dev account is 'Telegram FZ-LLC'. https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Telegram+FZ-LLC https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Telegram+FZ-... Telegram X is not the official version.It is an unofficial client for testing design and app speed. It has a different UI

ivanbakel 6y ago

In what way is the comment misleading? While "Telegram" might refer to "the Telegram app" or "the Telegram service", when talking about open-source, it nearly always refers to the service. Of the two, the source of the central server is arguably much more important, since it's possible to at least track if the app tries to exfiltrate any data.

eznzt 6y ago
The source of the central server is useless since if they release it there is no way to prove they are running the same software on their servers.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  The source isn't "useless", it allows you to run your own server.
  - romwell 6y ago
    Yeah, and then you need to modify the client to use that server, have everyone you communicate with install that client, and also not brand it as "Signal" because it has nothing to do with the Signal network anymore, and you can't communicate with "regular" Signal users. So, from the point of view of anyone using the Signal service, the utility of the source is near-useless.
- NateEag 6y ago
  Signal has a fascinating blog post from 2017 about how to use Intel's Software Guard Extensions (SGX) to actually let clients confirm that the software they're communicating with is the exact version they expect it to be. https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ SGX is definitely not bulletproof (https://medium.com/@maniacbolts/signal-increases-their-reliance-on-sgx-f46378f336d3 https://medium.com/@maniacbolts/signal-increases-their-relia...), but it exists to do exactly this job, and Signal is using it.
leetcrew 6y ago