6 ms·

I have a question to people who said Telegram is worse than WhatsApp in every possible way for privacy. Do you still hold this belief? At least Telegram is hold

I have a question to people who said Telegram is worse than WhatsApp in every possible way for privacy. Do you still hold this belief? At least Telegram is holding its promise, if you start secret chat only you and your peer knows encryption keys

eurasiantiger 6y ago
Didn’t Telegram roll their own crypto?
- tuyguntn 6y ago
  Sure, they rolled their own encryption. But, lets look at this problem from different point of view. Every encryption protocol is invented by some group of people, Signal and Telegram is no exception, only difference is other encryption algorithms are tested, audited and verified by time for security. Keep in mind, every algorithm is rolled out by someone, you can't say there will be no better encryption algorithm in the future than all available today. So someone will roll their own crypto anyway in the future, which might be more secure than everything we have today.
- dbrgn 6y ago
  Please stop bringing up this "never roll your own crypto" argument. It's a guideline, not a hard rule. Signal actually rolled their own crypto and aren't constantly criticized for that, on the contrary. Signal is praised for rolling it's own crypto. Don't get me wrong, the Telegram crypto can (and should) definitely be criticized. But please criticize that they use "bad crypto" or "strange crypto" or "unreviewed crypto", not that it's their own. (And of course, substantiate such claims with references that can be discussed.)
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    There's no need to continue litigating Telegram's crypto. (the criticisms are well enough known that people either aren't going to listen or can just go read them)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - costsNall 6y ago
      I’ve not heard of Telegram’s crypto criticisms, and I follow tech. Why would I know to just go read it? It’s almost as if your cognitive time series is not the same as everyone’s. (why the parens)?
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Instead of Don't get me wrong, the Telegram crypto can (and should) definitely be criticized. But please criticize that they use "bad crypto" or "strange crypto" or "unreviewed crypto", not that it's their own. (And of course, substantiate such claims with references that can be discussed.) the people bringing it up can just provide you with a link to one of the many discussions of it.
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    I am no expert, but "Signal rolling their own crypto" isn't the same as "X rolling their own crypto": 1. Folks spear-heading the Noise Protocol Framework (upon which Signal's protocol is based) are cryptographers [0]. 2. They built upon existing standards for one specific purpose: Creating two-way secure channels [1]. [0] https://signal.org/docs/ https://signal.org/docs/ [1] https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3gipxdJ22iM https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3gipxdJ22iM
    - dbrgn 6y ago
      As far as I know, the Signal protocol was developed for TextSecure back in 2013. Noise actually references the Double Ratchet Algorithm by Moxie and Trevor Perrin as an inspiration. Not the other way around. At some point in time, all now well-established cryptographers will have developed their first own cryptosystem, without already having established a good reputation. Whether or not someone develops a cryptosystem without being famous for cryptography work is simply not a good argument for discussing a cryptosystem. The properties of a cryptosystem are a good argument for discussing it.
- Aachen 6y ago
  As did Signal (called Axolotl back then)? All protocols are invented at some point. Telegram did a terrible job marketing this one but it has been a long time now and the only issue I ever heard of was fixed some years ago. It's still not exactly pretty, but then look at TLS and I'm actually quite okay with mtproto. The real issue is that mtproto is never used. It isn't implemented in most clients for no apparent reason ("can't keep state for encryption keys!" is the usual excuse - dude you keep my login token what's the big deal here) and if you try to use it, it doesn't sync between devices. One of the core selling points is a solid desktop experience.
  - Lopiolis 6y ago
    You mean Signal which was created by Moxie Marlinspike and other legit cryptogaphers and security researchers? Who rolled Telegram's crypto? No idea. Why should we trust them? No idea. I think I'll go with the people who have been contributing to the field for years and are highly respected.
    - Aachen 6y ago
      I'd rather go with cryptanalysis and/or audits than big names. Both protocols are old enough now to have had ample opportunity. And I can't tell if Moxie really means to improve the status quo or works for some three letter agency and builds just enough metadata opportunities into popular messengers and opportunistic encryption into WhatsApp to be helpful without being suspicious. To avoid redundancy, I posted these only yesterday and it includes some of the reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669267 They don't cover everything unfortunately but I'm also getting annoyed with the ephemerality of HN. What's posted last week is forgotten and never looked at again. I can try to find old posts that cover it or type it all out again (and it's a big claim so very few people will even take the time to read a big comment with reasons in the middle of another thread). I'm also not denying he does good stuff, just that there are enough weird opinions (decentralization = evil, anybody but us = evil, bug bounties = evil...) that I carefully look at what he makes and would rather there were better alternatives than their central servers. Signal is still the only realistic messenger to use for good security and usability, unfortunately. Wire is a good second but Signal is definitely more smooth and I'd still recommend that to the general public, with the asterisk that it's an American company and that they should try Matrix if they're feeling adventurous (Wire falling somewhere in the middle, at that point you might as well try Matrix).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  Telegram rolled their own crypto, backdoored it and got caught https://t.co/YTmXqgzzzg?amp=1 https://t.co/YTmXqgzzzg?amp=1
octorian 6y ago
> if you start secret chat only you and your peer knows encryption keys The moment a product is "secure by exception" rather than "secure by default," a huge benefit of E2E encryption is immediately thrown out the window. Sometimes the simple knowledge of which conversations are secure, and which aren't, is more valuable than the content of those conversations. Furthermore, when everything is E2E encrypted, mass surveillance of message content is essentially quashed.
ignoramous 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy. It isn't Telegram vs WhatsApp. Even if it was, the answer, in light of this new discovery, would be neither. At this point, Matrix, Threema, and Signal are some of the more popular cross-platform solutions left to ponder about. Telegram nor WhatsApp are answers to any privacy question anyone may have.

eurasiantiger 6y ago

Didn’t Telegram roll their own crypto?

tuyguntn 6y ago
Sure, they rolled their own encryption. But, lets look at this problem from different point of view. Every encryption protocol is invented by some group of people, Signal and Telegram is no exception, only difference is other encryption algorithms are tested, audited and verified by time for security. Keep in mind, every algorithm is rolled out by someone, you can't say there will be no better encryption algorithm in the future than all available today. So someone will roll their own crypto anyway in the future, which might be more secure than everything we have today.
dbrgn 6y ago
Please stop bringing up this "never roll your own crypto" argument. It's a guideline, not a hard rule. Signal actually rolled their own crypto and aren't constantly criticized for that, on the contrary. Signal is praised for rolling it's own crypto. Don't get me wrong, the Telegram crypto can (and should) definitely be criticized. But please criticize that they use "bad crypto" or "strange crypto" or "unreviewed crypto", not that it's their own. (And of course, substantiate such claims with references that can be discussed.)
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's no need to continue litigating Telegram's crypto. (the criticisms are well enough known that people either aren't going to listen or can just go read them)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - costsNall 6y ago
    I’ve not heard of Telegram’s crypto criticisms, and I follow tech. Why would I know to just go read it? It’s almost as if your cognitive time series is not the same as everyone’s. (why the parens)?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Instead of Don't get me wrong, the Telegram crypto can (and should) definitely be criticized. But please criticize that they use "bad crypto" or "strange crypto" or "unreviewed crypto", not that it's their own. (And of course, substantiate such claims with references that can be discussed.) the people bringing it up can just provide you with a link to one of the many discussions of it.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  I am no expert, but "Signal rolling their own crypto" isn't the same as "X rolling their own crypto": 1. Folks spear-heading the Noise Protocol Framework (upon which Signal's protocol is based) are cryptographers [0]. 2. They built upon existing standards for one specific purpose: Creating two-way secure channels [1]. [0] https://signal.org/docs/ https://signal.org/docs/ [1] https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3gipxdJ22iM https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3gipxdJ22iM
  - dbrgn 6y ago
    As far as I know, the Signal protocol was developed for TextSecure back in 2013. Noise actually references the Double Ratchet Algorithm by Moxie and Trevor Perrin as an inspiration. Not the other way around. At some point in time, all now well-established cryptographers will have developed their first own cryptosystem, without already having established a good reputation. Whether or not someone develops a cryptosystem without being famous for cryptography work is simply not a good argument for discussing a cryptosystem. The properties of a cryptosystem are a good argument for discussing it.
Aachen 6y ago
As did Signal (called Axolotl back then)? All protocols are invented at some point. Telegram did a terrible job marketing this one but it has been a long time now and the only issue I ever heard of was fixed some years ago. It's still not exactly pretty, but then look at TLS and I'm actually quite okay with mtproto. The real issue is that mtproto is never used. It isn't implemented in most clients for no apparent reason ("can't keep state for encryption keys!" is the usual excuse - dude you keep my login token what's the big deal here) and if you try to use it, it doesn't sync between devices. One of the core selling points is a solid desktop experience.
- Lopiolis 6y ago
  You mean Signal which was created by Moxie Marlinspike and other legit cryptogaphers and security researchers? Who rolled Telegram's crypto? No idea. Why should we trust them? No idea. I think I'll go with the people who have been contributing to the field for years and are highly respected.
  - Aachen 6y ago
    I'd rather go with cryptanalysis and/or audits than big names. Both protocols are old enough now to have had ample opportunity. And I can't tell if Moxie really means to improve the status quo or works for some three letter agency and builds just enough metadata opportunities into popular messengers and opportunistic encryption into WhatsApp to be helpful without being suspicious. To avoid redundancy, I posted these only yesterday and it includes some of the reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669267 They don't cover everything unfortunately but I'm also getting annoyed with the ephemerality of HN. What's posted last week is forgotten and never looked at again. I can try to find old posts that cover it or type it all out again (and it's a big claim so very few people will even take the time to read a big comment with reasons in the middle of another thread). I'm also not denying he does good stuff, just that there are enough weird opinions (decentralization = evil, anybody but us = evil, bug bounties = evil...) that I carefully look at what he makes and would rather there were better alternatives than their central servers. Signal is still the only realistic messenger to use for good security and usability, unfortunately. Wire is a good second but Signal is definitely more smooth and I'd still recommend that to the general public, with the asterisk that it's an American company and that they should try Matrix if they're feeling adventurous (Wire falling somewhere in the middle, at that point you might as well try Matrix).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
FDSGSG 6y ago
Telegram rolled their own crypto, backdoored it and got caught https://t.co/YTmXqgzzzg?amp=1 https://t.co/YTmXqgzzzg?amp=1

octorian 6y ago

> if you start secret chat only you and your peer knows encryption keys The moment a product is "secure by exception" rather than "secure by default," a huge benefit of E2E encryption is immediately thrown out the window. Sometimes the simple knowledge of which conversations are secure, and which aren't, is more valuable than the content of those conversations. Furthermore, when everything is E2E encrypted, mass surveillance of message content is essentially quashed.

ignoramous 6y ago

This is a false dichotomy. It isn't Telegram vs WhatsApp. Even if it was, the answer, in light of this new discovery, would be neither. At this point, Matrix, Threema, and Signal are some of the more popular cross-platform solutions left to ponder about. Telegram nor WhatsApp are answers to any privacy question anyone may have.