4 ms·

SMS, WhatsApp, if you don't care about security and/or privacy. Perhaps Telegram but I recall reading some commentary on their crypto that made me hesitant. C

by na85 5y ago

SMS, WhatsApp, if you don't care about security and/or privacy. Perhaps Telegram but I recall reading some commentary on their crypto that made me hesitant. Conversations is a good XMPP messenger, and it supports crypto extensions, OMEMO, etc.

YeBanKo 5y ago
Telegram supports E2EE only of you specifically switch to secret chats and I believe it is only supported in pm, not in groups.
- maqp 5y ago
  It's also not supported for majority of desktop clients, so if you want to continue the "secret chat" you had on mobile on laptop when you get to work/school/whatnot, guess what, you're shit out of luck and need to whip out your phone every time you want to reply. It's so bad you'll just give up and use non-E2EE 1:1 chats because at least they're cross-platform. So one could argue Telegram has no _functional_ E2EE at all.
donkeyd 5y ago
> security and/or privacy WhatsApp is arguably more secure than many of the alternatives. Just look at the repo for Signal. For privacy it probably isn't, when you're in the US, that is.
- annadane 5y ago
  Whatsapp is owned by Facebook. That automatically disqualifies it.
  - maqp 5y ago
    Metadata-wise, yes. For protecting content, it's still pretty good. Also, WA seems to add features pretty close to Signal, which could indicate WA supports Signal in testing some of the features Signal provides consultation wrt secure implementation. WA probably doesn't want to fully take the wheel and fuck around with the Signal protocol. They've of course made some changes such as the group management system, and the levels of safety number warnings (no-warnings/non-blocking warnings as opposed to Signal's non-blocking/blocking warnings). But WA has been working on interesting proof of concepts for wider deployment such as the client-side encrypted backups. Those are actually fantastic when properly implemented. There's of course shitty aspects with WA about those like the 64-bit passwords, but, if that's a feature Signal thanks to possible collaboration can properly deploy later, I'm all for it. There's a difference between Signal being categorically better for pretty much everything when compared to WA, but, WA isn't the worst option, even when considering its owned by FB.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      They're already trying to do hashmatching to better build ad profiles out of encrypted messages

by na85 5y ago

YeBanKo 5y ago

Telegram supports E2EE only of you specifically switch to secret chats and I believe it is only supported in pm, not in groups.

maqp 5y ago
It's also not supported for majority of desktop clients, so if you want to continue the "secret chat" you had on mobile on laptop when you get to work/school/whatnot, guess what, you're shit out of luck and need to whip out your phone every time you want to reply. It's so bad you'll just give up and use non-E2EE 1:1 chats because at least they're cross-platform. So one could argue Telegram has no _functional_ E2EE at all.

donkeyd 5y ago

> security and/or privacy WhatsApp is arguably more secure than many of the alternatives. Just look at the repo for Signal. For privacy it probably isn't, when you're in the US, that is.

annadane 5y ago
Whatsapp is owned by Facebook. That automatically disqualifies it.
- maqp 5y ago
  Metadata-wise, yes. For protecting content, it's still pretty good. Also, WA seems to add features pretty close to Signal, which could indicate WA supports Signal in testing some of the features Signal provides consultation wrt secure implementation. WA probably doesn't want to fully take the wheel and fuck around with the Signal protocol. They've of course made some changes such as the group management system, and the levels of safety number warnings (no-warnings/non-blocking warnings as opposed to Signal's non-blocking/blocking warnings). But WA has been working on interesting proof of concepts for wider deployment such as the client-side encrypted backups. Those are actually fantastic when properly implemented. There's of course shitty aspects with WA about those like the 64-bit passwords, but, if that's a feature Signal thanks to possible collaboration can properly deploy later, I'm all for it. There's a difference between Signal being categorically better for pretty much everything when compared to WA, but, WA isn't the worst option, even when considering its owned by FB.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    They're already trying to do hashmatching to better build ad profiles out of encrypted messages