5 ms·

TL;DR: WhatsApp is E2E encrypted, but that doesn't mean there are only 2 ends.

jaywalk 5y ago
No, that's not what the article is saying. There are two ends, but if one of the ends decides to forward the content to WhatsApp, then WhatsApp can read it. Which isn't shocking or breaking E2EE in any way.
- sigjuice 5y ago
  How does one confirm how many “ends” are there in a conversation? If WhatsApp secretly set themselves (or another third party) up as an “end” in every conversation , that would also not break break E2EE.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    Sure, but that's not what's being reported here.
    - sigjuice 5y ago
      My comment was not about the original article. It was directed at the comment above me which stated "There are two ends ...".
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        Well my comment was about the original article being misrepresented by the comment I replied to, so your comment adds nothing to that conversation.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        sigjuice 5y ago
        My comment still stands on its own. How do you know there are only "two ends"?
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  > There are two ends, but if one of the ends decides to forward the content to WhatsApp, then WhatsApp can read it. Translation: there are two ends, but one of the ends can send it to yet another end. That sounds like there are more than two ends.
  - Shish2k 5y ago
    Ok, but if we use this definition, then “somebody took a screenshot of my Signal chat and posted it on Twitter” is proof that “Twitter can read your Signal messages”. That doesn’t seem like a very practical definition.
    - Uberphallus 5y ago
      A screenshot can be forged, meanwhile Facebook has reasonable certainty about the authenticity of the message. This third end is within the WhatsApp platform, so we're not really comparing the same thing. It's essentially a forward to the party that supposedly can't see your messages, breaking what people understand by E2E. Today this behavior is triggered when it's reported, tomorrow it'll be when the government, or worse, some AI, flags a user. You share a groupchat with the wrong person, or they have you in their contact list, boom, eavesdropped. But some people will still claim it's only 2 ends just because it's not forwarded 100% of the time. I guess it's matter of semantics.

No, that's not what the article is saying. There are two ends, but if one of the ends decides to forward the content to WhatsApp, then WhatsApp can read it. Which isn't shocking or breaking E2EE in any way.

sigjuice 5y ago
How does one confirm how many “ends” are there in a conversation? If WhatsApp secretly set themselves (or another third party) up as an “end” in every conversation , that would also not break break E2EE.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Sure, but that's not what's being reported here.
  - sigjuice 5y ago
    My comment was not about the original article. It was directed at the comment above me which stated "There are two ends ...".
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Well my comment was about the original article being misrepresented by the comment I replied to, so your comment adds nothing to that conversation.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - sigjuice 5y ago
        My comment still stands on its own. How do you know there are only "two ends"?
Uberphallus 5y ago
> There are two ends, but if one of the ends decides to forward the content to WhatsApp, then WhatsApp can read it. Translation: there are two ends, but one of the ends can send it to yet another end. That sounds like there are more than two ends.
- Shish2k 5y ago
  Ok, but if we use this definition, then “somebody took a screenshot of my Signal chat and posted it on Twitter” is proof that “Twitter can read your Signal messages”. That doesn’t seem like a very practical definition.
  - Uberphallus 5y ago
    A screenshot can be forged, meanwhile Facebook has reasonable certainty about the authenticity of the message. This third end is within the WhatsApp platform, so we're not really comparing the same thing. It's essentially a forward to the party that supposedly can't see your messages, breaking what people understand by E2E. Today this behavior is triggered when it's reported, tomorrow it'll be when the government, or worse, some AI, flags a user. You share a groupchat with the wrong person, or they have you in their contact list, boom, eavesdropped. But some people will still claim it's only 2 ends just because it's not forwarded 100% of the time. I guess it's matter of semantics.