6 ms·

How is it compared to telegram?

by sagivo 6y ago

utf_8x 6y ago
IMO it works just as well and unlike Telegram it's actually credible... The telegram crypto is an absolute disaster and they have been pretty shady and defensive when asked about it in the past. Not to mention the back-end is closed-source. Also, the desktop clients still don't support encryption, many years after it's been first requested.
- domano 6y ago
  Do you have some links regarding their disastrous encryption? The security guys i know speak highly of telegram and AFAIK it has been open sourced recently, but i am open to new information.
  - utf_8x 6y ago
    The Telegram backend is still closed-source as far as I know. The problem with their crypto is that nobody really knows if it's secure or not because it's closed and unverified. Ever heard the first rule of encryption? "Never roll your own crypto". Well they broke the rule and they won't let anyone check if the crypto is secure or not. Not to mention encryption is off by default and your plaintext messages are stored on their servers...
    - blehn 6y ago
      Cite some sources. They clearly do not store your messages in plaintext on their servers https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data
      - fsflover 6y ago
        > in plaintext They have the encryption key, so the difference is not huge.
        blehn 6y ago
        Stored on different servers in different jurisdictions, right? Sure it's not ideal if you want maximum security of your data, but it _is_ a huge difference from simply storing plain text.
  - domano 6y ago
    I do apologize, i had Threema in my mind and mixed them up.
- j-james 6y ago
  Telegram's MTProto 2.0 encryption protocol was recently proved correct, but I haven't seen any peer review or discussion on the paper yet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141
seniorivn 6y ago
not as good in terms of UI/ux but compared to pgp emails much simplier ps telegram is no more secure than Whatsapp unless u use secret chats
hiq 6y ago
Better security, worse UX.
kemenaran 6y ago
IMHO, Signal main advantage is that you can sell it to your parents and friends like "WhatsApp, but safe". It tries to have feature-parity to WhatsApp; looks the same, works the same. All this while researching innovations on cryptography that doesn't compromise user experience too much. In my experience, doing exactly what WhatsApp does (but safer) makes it an easy sell to people around me.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  True, though Signal annoyingly wants the user to also enable it as SMS app. From my own experience with relatives this can lead to a lot of confusion among non-technical users, for example when they try to send a picture to a contact and it fails because that contact does not use Signal. From what I've seen Signal does not clearly show a difference between those two groups. Other than that it's definitely a great alternative.
colordrops 6y ago
Telegram has had several security and privacy issues in the past. It also stores your messages unencrypted on their server by default.
input_sh 6y ago
Telegram is only end-to-end encrypted in a feature called secret chats. Groups and channels and individual chats are not end-to-end encrypted. In other words, Telegram doesn't even deserve to be in the same conversation. Even if it had the best encryption out there (however you define that), that wouldn't mean anything when it's not used in like 98% of the cases (percentage pulled out of my ass). It's like comparing Signal to Facebook's Messenger, and I'd still say Messenger over Telegram because at least it uses Signal's protocol under the hood (I believe the feature is called hidden conversations) instead of inventing its own thing and ignoring the expert opinions.
- Siira 6y ago
  Telegram not having e2e by default is a feature; It allows great multi-device usage.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    What kind of multi-device issues do Signal and WhatsApp have exactly? Granted I've never used WhatsApp, but I've been using Signal for like 5 years now on my phone and on my laptop with absolutely no issues.
    - Siira 6y ago
      I don't think you can even use the same Signal account on two different iOS devices, much less desktop. Their desktop apps just link to the phone's app. WhatsApp is a total joke, it loses media (IIRC this includes audio messages as well) people send you after a very short time even when you use it on a single device, so talking about multi-device usage is completely out of the overton window.
    - Jare 6y ago
      WhatsApp does not have multi-device, so technically it has no issues with it. (for any sensible definition of multi-device)
    - alpaca128 6y ago
krick 6y ago
Hardly comparable in terms of usability. But then, WhatsApp isn't that good compared to Telegram either. In fact, I wouldn't use WhatsApp at all if various communities wouldn't host there group-chats I belong to. So I don't think usability has that much to do with your ability to switch. And supposed "security" has almost nothing to do with it whatsoever. So I personally don't even know if I'll keep fighting for my privacy and stuff or if I'm going to give up now. I don't want to, but I honestly don't imagine how on Feb08 I will be telling people who aren't my close friends or co-workers, but communication with whom is really valuable to me, that I refuse to join any WhatsApp group chats anymore, so they will have to notify me about anything important (important to me, in he first place!) personally via SMS, Telegram, email, whatever. Especially now, when people are forced to communicate remotely and stuff gets cancelled/renewed/delayed because of another round of idiotic government regulations, so if I'll fall out of these communities, I'm pretty much left in the vacuum and won't know about anything that happens.

How is it compared to telegram?

by sagivo 6y ago

How is it compared to telegram?

IMO it works just as well and unlike Telegram it's actually credible... The telegram crypto is an absolute disaster and they have been pretty shady and defensive when asked about it in the past. Not to mention the back-end is closed-source. Also, the desktop clients still don't support encryption, many years after it's been first requested.

domano 6y ago
Do you have some links regarding their disastrous encryption? The security guys i know speak highly of telegram and AFAIK it has been open sourced recently, but i am open to new information.
- utf_8x 6y ago
  The Telegram backend is still closed-source as far as I know. The problem with their crypto is that nobody really knows if it's secure or not because it's closed and unverified. Ever heard the first rule of encryption? "Never roll your own crypto". Well they broke the rule and they won't let anyone check if the crypto is secure or not. Not to mention encryption is off by default and your plaintext messages are stored on their servers...
  - blehn 6y ago
    Cite some sources. They clearly do not store your messages in plaintext on their servers https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data
    - fsflover 6y ago
      > in plaintext They have the encryption key, so the difference is not huge.
      - blehn 6y ago
        Stored on different servers in different jurisdictions, right? Sure it's not ideal if you want maximum security of your data, but it _is_ a huge difference from simply storing plain text.
- domano 6y ago
  I do apologize, i had Threema in my mind and mixed them up.
j-james 6y ago
Telegram's MTProto 2.0 encryption protocol was recently proved correct, but I haven't seen any peer review or discussion on the paper yet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141

seniorivn 6y ago

not as good in terms of UI/ux but compared to pgp emails much simplier ps telegram is no more secure than Whatsapp unless u use secret chats

hiq 6y ago

Better security, worse UX.

kemenaran 6y ago

IMHO, Signal main advantage is that you can sell it to your parents and friends like "WhatsApp, but safe". It tries to have feature-parity to WhatsApp; looks the same, works the same. All this while researching innovations on cryptography that doesn't compromise user experience too much. In my experience, doing exactly what WhatsApp does (but safer) makes it an easy sell to people around me.

alpaca128 6y ago
True, though Signal annoyingly wants the user to also enable it as SMS app. From my own experience with relatives this can lead to a lot of confusion among non-technical users, for example when they try to send a picture to a contact and it fails because that contact does not use Signal. From what I've seen Signal does not clearly show a difference between those two groups. Other than that it's definitely a great alternative.

colordrops 6y ago

Telegram has had several security and privacy issues in the past. It also stores your messages unencrypted on their server by default.

input_sh 6y ago

Telegram is only end-to-end encrypted in a feature called secret chats. Groups and channels and individual chats are not end-to-end encrypted. In other words, Telegram doesn't even deserve to be in the same conversation. Even if it had the best encryption out there (however you define that), that wouldn't mean anything when it's not used in like 98% of the cases (percentage pulled out of my ass). It's like comparing Signal to Facebook's Messenger, and I'd still say Messenger over Telegram because at least it uses Signal's protocol under the hood (I believe the feature is called hidden conversations) instead of inventing its own thing and ignoring the expert opinions.

Siira 6y ago
Telegram not having e2e by default is a feature; It allows great multi-device usage.
- input_sh 6y ago
  What kind of multi-device issues do Signal and WhatsApp have exactly? Granted I've never used WhatsApp, but I've been using Signal for like 5 years now on my phone and on my laptop with absolutely no issues.
  - Siira 6y ago
    I don't think you can even use the same Signal account on two different iOS devices, much less desktop. Their desktop apps just link to the phone's app. WhatsApp is a total joke, it loses media (IIRC this includes audio messages as well) people send you after a very short time even when you use it on a single device, so talking about multi-device usage is completely out of the overton window.
  - Jare 6y ago
    WhatsApp does not have multi-device, so technically it has no issues with it. (for any sensible definition of multi-device)
  - alpaca128 6y ago

krick 6y ago

Hardly comparable in terms of usability. But then, WhatsApp isn't that good compared to Telegram either. In fact, I wouldn't use WhatsApp at all if various communities wouldn't host there group-chats I belong to. So I don't think usability has that much to do with your ability to switch. And supposed "security" has almost nothing to do with it whatsoever. So I personally don't even know if I'll keep fighting for my privacy and stuff or if I'm going to give up now. I don't want to, but I honestly don't imagine how on Feb08 I will be telling people who aren't my close friends or co-workers, but communication with whom is really valuable to me, that I refuse to join any WhatsApp group chats anymore, so they will have to notify me about anything important (important to me, in he first place!) personally via SMS, Telegram, email, whatever. Especially now, when people are forced to communicate remotely and stuff gets cancelled/renewed/delayed because of another round of idiotic government regulations, so if I'll fall out of these communities, I'm pretty much left in the vacuum and won't know about anything that happens.