3 ms·

>then they are doing an insanely amazing job since such few vulnerabilities were found. If they are doing amazing job, then 1. Why isn't desktop chats end-to-

by maqp 5y ago

>then they are doing an insanely amazing job since such few vulnerabilities were found. If they are doing amazing job, then 1. Why isn't desktop chats end-to-end encrypted? 2. Why aren't group chats end-to-end encrypted? 3. Why isn't any chat end-to-end encrypted by default? If they're so good, why does SO MANY vendors like Signal, Element, Wire, WhatsApp, Session, Threema, Briar, Cwtch manage to pull ubiquitous end-to-end encryption off? They have the money, why can't they pay a cryptographer to design protocol with best practices, and modern primitives? >cult, russia, is beside the point here. It They're not beside the point. When the E2EE is practically non-existent, the project becomes practically indistinguishable from honeypots like the recent Anom, you have to ask whose honey pot operation would it be. As for the cult aspect, if you're not part of the cult fanbase, surely you can stop defending a random company, and take a rational stance and condemn Telegram for not deploying ubiquitous E2EE? It's not like them doing so would hurt you in any way? Surely they in their infinite wisdom can implement it? Also, I don't need to fix their crappy protocol to be able to criticize it. I don't need to show you the line of code for you to agree there is no E2EE for group chats etc. As for my job, I managed to implement ubiquitous end-to-end encryption for my project, TFC, even for groups, on an extremely constrained split TCB HW architecture. If a CS major can pull it off in such circumstances, why the f can't a multi-millionare with award winning mathematicians?

gsich 5y ago
My guess for 1 and 3: because they haven't figuered out a way to sync this to all devices. For 2, maybe scaling issues? Some groups tend to be like public IRC channels.
- maqp 5y ago
  Telegram already has two different group categories: Normal, an super groups. Telegram bumps 200 member groups to super groups. Signal's group E2EE scales up to 1000 members (hard limit). It's both doable, and scalable far beyond group sizes that have reasonable expectation of privacy. I.e. they could drop end-to-end encryption after the group grows too large, e.g. after 200, 500 or 1000 members. Public IRC-channel groups don't need E2EE. The overwhelming majority of groups are small, and would benefit tremendously from E2EE. As for syncing messages between devices, it's doable, as shown by Signal, Wire etc.
  - gsich 5y ago
    Of course it's doable, but citing Signal for it ... you don't get old messages, only new ones. Might be a security "feature" but then again, let me export/import the history manually.
Dah00n 5y ago
You are missing the point though. If I as a random person create a client with E2EE then if it is a good client otherwise or E2EE by default doesn't matter in the question "Are they doing a good job at cryptography". It would be like saying "That expensive and very beautiful plate sucks because the cake you put on-top of it is disgusting". Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. >surely you can stop defending a random company, and take a rational stance and condemn Telegram for not deploying ubiquitous E2EE Yes I can and I do by comparing Telegram to likewise badly made clients (like iMessage) but this is still beside the point that you seem to avoid: If they made a piece of software and have no professional knowledge of the area it was made for (cryptography/E2EE) then they are extremely good at what they are doing no matter if you like the default settings or not. I don't use Telegram but this comment thread is nothing but a tirade against something because it is Russian. If you wanted to discuss the actual work then there's no reason at all to mention Russia. You criticize them and say a CS major can pull it off too and then try to argue their home country and default options are a proof of how vulnerable their software is. It is not proof. Code quality, default settings and where you live is not the same thing. Your comment is reading as "TL;DR Made in Russia, hence bad".

by maqp 5y ago

gsich 5y ago

My guess for 1 and 3: because they haven't figuered out a way to sync this to all devices. For 2, maybe scaling issues? Some groups tend to be like public IRC channels.

maqp 5y ago
Telegram already has two different group categories: Normal, an super groups. Telegram bumps 200 member groups to super groups. Signal's group E2EE scales up to 1000 members (hard limit). It's both doable, and scalable far beyond group sizes that have reasonable expectation of privacy. I.e. they could drop end-to-end encryption after the group grows too large, e.g. after 200, 500 or 1000 members. Public IRC-channel groups don't need E2EE. The overwhelming majority of groups are small, and would benefit tremendously from E2EE. As for syncing messages between devices, it's doable, as shown by Signal, Wire etc.
- gsich 5y ago
  Of course it's doable, but citing Signal for it ... you don't get old messages, only new ones. Might be a security "feature" but then again, let me export/import the history manually.

Dah00n 5y ago

You are missing the point though. If I as a random person create a client with E2EE then if it is a good client otherwise or E2EE by default doesn't matter in the question "Are they doing a good job at cryptography". It would be like saying "That expensive and very beautiful plate sucks because the cake you put on-top of it is disgusting". Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. >surely you can stop defending a random company, and take a rational stance and condemn Telegram for not deploying ubiquitous E2EE Yes I can and I do by comparing Telegram to likewise badly made clients (like iMessage) but this is still beside the point that you seem to avoid: If they made a piece of software and have no professional knowledge of the area it was made for (cryptography/E2EE) then they are extremely good at what they are doing no matter if you like the default settings or not. I don't use Telegram but this comment thread is nothing but a tirade against something because it is Russian. If you wanted to discuss the actual work then there's no reason at all to mention Russia. You criticize them and say a CS major can pull it off too and then try to argue their home country and default options are a proof of how vulnerable their software is. It is not proof. Code quality, default settings and where you live is not the same thing. Your comment is reading as "TL;DR Made in Russia, hence bad".