7 ms·

I'm skeptical of the accuracy of this document. Telegram is by default unencrypted and virtually public. Yet this document says the FBI can't get any message co

by yosito 5y ago

I'm skeptical of the accuracy of this document. Telegram is by default unencrypted and virtually public. Yet this document says the FBI can't get any message content?

xwolfi 5y ago
It's by default encrypted, actually.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  i don't think its e2e by default. I hope you are not talking about https.
- heavymark 5y ago
  Server-client encryption by default, not end-to-end encrypted by default. https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data
- maqp 5y ago
  Yeah, with client-server encryption. Which doesn't matter at all. Encryption where the service provider has the key, which is the case for * all Telegram chats by default * all Telegram group chats * all Telegram Win/Linux desktop chats is indistinguishable from end-to-end encryption where the service provider has a backdoor (ANOM[1]) In both cases the service provider, and anyone who hacks them, can read your messages. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted-phones-that-actually-copied-their-messages https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted...
heavymark 5y ago
I assume they are referring to telegram "secret chats"? Also their own website notes all chats are "encrypted" by default. It's simply that by default they are not "end-to-end" encrypted unless you use secret chats for instance.
3np 5y ago
Telegram is not based in any jurisdiction collaborating with the FBI. I'm assuming the KGB has free access
- luckylion 5y ago
  Telegram moved out of Russia precisely so they wouldn't be under their influence, so that's wild speculation. If the argument is that the KGB (or is it FSB now?) might go and just put a gun to their head: they could do that to literally anyone anywhere, so it doesn't matter. Telegram was in Berlin for a while but moved out of Germany for privacy/legal reasons as well (good call, considering that Germany is discussing trying to outlaw them) and moved to Dubai iirc.
  - lowwave 5y ago
    Telegram is influenced by FB of Russian VK (something like that). And VK has KGB tights. This is from Ukraine activists point of view just FYI. So your choices is Signal or Wire. Signal sever is in US, and Wire may or may not be in US. So there you go.
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      The grandparent comment was already hearsay but yours really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Durov was forced out of VK on threat of violence: there are no ties to VK.
      - boeingUH60 5y ago
        No, there are ties, even though Durov was forced out. Durov sold his VK stake to a Russian oligarch with extensive government ties, such that they now control the majority of the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-vkontakte-idUSL5N0KY3DQ20140124 https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-vkontakte-idUSL5N0KY3...
        emptysongglass 5y ago
jeroenhd 5y ago
Telegram does have end-to-end encrypted one-on-one chats, I suppose this document refers to that. Telegram group chats are very much available to law enforcement if they can convince Telegram to hand over the data. It could also be that Telegram (and any other foreign chat company) is more reluctant to (and more difficult to force to) share data with the FBI.
- maqp 5y ago
  >if they can convince Telegram to hand over the data. Or if they hack Telegram's servers. Or ask some other agency like the NSA (that hacks systems all the time) to do that for them. As for the legal aspects, I'm fairly sure Telegram can be made to comply, no individual user's is worth losing (tens/hundreds of) millions of customers in that particular country. It's not like Telegram can't do that technically*, the server-side database encryption key is by definition in the RAM of the server system. * That hasn't prevented them from actively misleading customers with their split-key-and store-parts-under-multiple-jurisdictions -scheme.
  - yosito 5y ago
    > Or if they hack Telegram's servers Or they join the group chat
    - maqp 5y ago
      Sure, that works for public groups but generally the private group chats with sensitive private information about peoples' personal/business life are not public.
  - adamcstephens 5y ago
    I’m curious how you think the US law enforcement agencies would compel Telegram to comply.
- BenoitP 5y ago
  Why are group chats more exposed?
berns 5y ago
It's encrypted but not e2e encrypted. Why would you say that it is virtually public? Do you think you or the FBI can easily access Telegram messages?
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Because telegram can access the messages. If the vendor can access the message data (eg: not end to end encrypted), anyone can. That is the bar. E2E||GTFO.
- yosito 5y ago
  Just join a group chat. Every message that was ever sent in that chat will be immediately visible. So yeah, it's virtually public. Even your private messages only require you to enter an SMS code to view, so anyone that can intercept an SMS sent to you, can read your messages.
  - maqp 5y ago
    >So yeah, it's virtually public. Let's stop saying that as it implies users are somehow aware the service provider has access to the content, and that they make an informed decisions wrt their privacy. >Even your private messages only require you to enter an SMS code to view, so anyone that can intercept an SMS sent to you, can read your messages. The 2FA password is something everyone should enable. It's still an incremental security improvement if you have to use Telegram and your threatmodel is a banana dictatorship doing SMS interception but not server-side hacking. The right thing to do is get yourself and your loved ones the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible; Signal is your best bet here. Cwtch/Briar if you need to also protect metadata.
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      > The right thing to do is get yourself and your loved ones the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible; Signal is your best bet here. Cwtch/Briar if you need to also protect metadata. No, this is not the right move. It's engaging with the ecosystem of messaging products balancing ease of use, ethics of the business and people behind it, and your own threat profile. Most will never be under threat of a state actor that necessitates getting their friends and family "the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible". I also use Matrix but personally speaking I find Moxie Marlinspike a deeply unethical person who will gleefully slander the competition including up to suing them in his quest for supremacy. So I don't touch Signal because on my tripod of interests to balance, I don't want to go anywhere near his ethics. Use Signal or Session or Element or Telegram but stop telling people not to use a thing because you believe E2EE is the next Jesus Christ. Only sith deal in absolutes.
godelski 5y ago
The document is about what can be easily requested from companies, not what can be hacked. Because telegram hosts no servers in the US they can't trivially request it. They can get it other ways and of course by hacking. But the document isn't about what they can successfully hack or request through back channels. This is why people say that you have to trust Telegram, as opposed to fully E2EE systems (like Signal) which require (almost) zero trust.
skinkestek 5y ago
It is because you and others got your facts wrong. Telegram is not unencrypted. This is a lie spread by certain WhatsApp and Signal fanboys (not all, count me in with the Signal fans - I just happen to be a reasonable one that to some degree know what I'm talking about) with the excuse that "of course we mean end-to-end-encrypted when we say encrypted". What we see now is the resulting confusion: why don't law enforcement have access to it if it virtually unencrypted? Well, the answer is despite all claims of how lousy the encryption is for some weird reason[1] it doesn't seem to leak data. Now that we have seen the confusion that stems from saying "encrypted means end-to-end-encrypted when we say it does", can we stop repeating that nonsense? Also, can we think twice before mindlessly repeating such stuff in the future even if it was originally said by some extremely smart people that are well respected for good reasons? Because those very smart people were the same who recommended WhatsApp for a long time until it became painfully clear to everyone that: - WhatsApp leaks metadata to Facebook which cooperates happily with basically any government as far as I understand - WhatsApp has uploaded unencrypted backups to Google Cloud (yes, probably over https, but Google got all you messages and it was known that they would datamine it.) - and more¨ PS: Some time around half a year before Telegram launched WhatsApp actually sent data unencrypted, i.e. as plaintext. And they sent it over port 443..! PPS: Stay safe folks, opsec is probably more important than the exact messenger you use. My bets today are Signal in the short run and Matrix as soon as possible, but personally I send photos to my parents using Telegram and receive a lot more info back from various groups. [1]: Meaning either this is a bigger honeypot than An0m and everyone Three Letter Agency including both FSB and NSA are in on it or Telegram actually got something right. Or they have just been extremely lucky for 9 years in a row or something.
- egberts1 5y ago
  Telegram, as a capability, does not do “end-to-end encryption” for one-on-one chat. And Telegram most certainly cannot encrypt group chat.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    I does have, it is well known and it has existed for years. The remaining criticism now is that the default for one-on-one chats is still the more convenient normal point-to-point-encrypted chat type instead of E2E-encrypted (which, in Telegrams implementation is less convenient since it doesn't sync between clients, which again is reasonably for those messages where one really cares about secrecy in the context of day-to-day messaging apps). As usual: I only observe this from the outside. For what I know maybe Putin reads my messages before he goes to bed every night to fall asleep because I mostly use ordinary point-to-point encrypted messages which can be intercepted if Telegram is a secret FSB front or if Telegram isn't careful. Note however that for all we know maybe Biden reads my mail too to fall asleep since that too isn't end-to-end encrypted. I only comment on observable facts or statements that haven't been debunked. The last means I haven't verified the crypto of any app, I take it for granted that if it is broken someone will figure out just like when WhatsApp sent plaintext messages over port 443, and even faster with Telegram since there are so many who wants to find flaws in it.

by yosito 5y ago

I'm skeptical of the accuracy of this document. Telegram is by default unencrypted and virtually public. Yet this document says the FBI can't get any message content?

xwolfi 5y ago

It's by default encrypted, actually.

cute_boi 5y ago
i don't think its e2e by default. I hope you are not talking about https.
heavymark 5y ago
Server-client encryption by default, not end-to-end encrypted by default. https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data
maqp 5y ago
Yeah, with client-server encryption. Which doesn't matter at all. Encryption where the service provider has the key, which is the case for * all Telegram chats by default * all Telegram group chats * all Telegram Win/Linux desktop chats is indistinguishable from end-to-end encryption where the service provider has a backdoor (ANOM[1]) In both cases the service provider, and anyone who hacks them, can read your messages. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted-phones-that-actually-copied-their-messages https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted...

heavymark 5y ago

I assume they are referring to telegram "secret chats"? Also their own website notes all chats are "encrypted" by default. It's simply that by default they are not "end-to-end" encrypted unless you use secret chats for instance.

3np 5y ago

Telegram is not based in any jurisdiction collaborating with the FBI. I'm assuming the KGB has free access

luckylion 5y ago
Telegram moved out of Russia precisely so they wouldn't be under their influence, so that's wild speculation. If the argument is that the KGB (or is it FSB now?) might go and just put a gun to their head: they could do that to literally anyone anywhere, so it doesn't matter. Telegram was in Berlin for a while but moved out of Germany for privacy/legal reasons as well (good call, considering that Germany is discussing trying to outlaw them) and moved to Dubai iirc.
- lowwave 5y ago
  Telegram is influenced by FB of Russian VK (something like that). And VK has KGB tights. This is from Ukraine activists point of view just FYI. So your choices is Signal or Wire. Signal sever is in US, and Wire may or may not be in US. So there you go.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    The grandparent comment was already hearsay but yours really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Durov was forced out of VK on threat of violence: there are no ties to VK.
    - boeingUH60 5y ago
      No, there are ties, even though Durov was forced out. Durov sold his VK stake to a Russian oligarch with extensive government ties, such that they now control the majority of the company. https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-vkontakte-idUSL5N0KY3DQ20140124 https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-vkontakte-idUSL5N0KY3...
      - emptysongglass 5y ago

jeroenhd 5y ago

Telegram does have end-to-end encrypted one-on-one chats, I suppose this document refers to that. Telegram group chats are very much available to law enforcement if they can convince Telegram to hand over the data. It could also be that Telegram (and any other foreign chat company) is more reluctant to (and more difficult to force to) share data with the FBI.

maqp 5y ago
>if they can convince Telegram to hand over the data. Or if they hack Telegram's servers. Or ask some other agency like the NSA (that hacks systems all the time) to do that for them. As for the legal aspects, I'm fairly sure Telegram can be made to comply, no individual user's is worth losing (tens/hundreds of) millions of customers in that particular country. It's not like Telegram can't do that technically*, the server-side database encryption key is by definition in the RAM of the server system. * That hasn't prevented them from actively misleading customers with their split-key-and store-parts-under-multiple-jurisdictions -scheme.
- yosito 5y ago
  > Or if they hack Telegram's servers Or they join the group chat
  - maqp 5y ago
    Sure, that works for public groups but generally the private group chats with sensitive private information about peoples' personal/business life are not public.
- adamcstephens 5y ago
  I’m curious how you think the US law enforcement agencies would compel Telegram to comply.
BenoitP 5y ago
Why are group chats more exposed?

berns 5y ago

It's encrypted but not e2e encrypted. Why would you say that it is virtually public? Do you think you or the FBI can easily access Telegram messages?

randomhodler84 5y ago
Because telegram can access the messages. If the vendor can access the message data (eg: not end to end encrypted), anyone can. That is the bar. E2E||GTFO.
yosito 5y ago
Just join a group chat. Every message that was ever sent in that chat will be immediately visible. So yeah, it's virtually public. Even your private messages only require you to enter an SMS code to view, so anyone that can intercept an SMS sent to you, can read your messages.
- maqp 5y ago
  >So yeah, it's virtually public. Let's stop saying that as it implies users are somehow aware the service provider has access to the content, and that they make an informed decisions wrt their privacy. >Even your private messages only require you to enter an SMS code to view, so anyone that can intercept an SMS sent to you, can read your messages. The 2FA password is something everyone should enable. It's still an incremental security improvement if you have to use Telegram and your threatmodel is a banana dictatorship doing SMS interception but not server-side hacking. The right thing to do is get yourself and your loved ones the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible; Signal is your best bet here. Cwtch/Briar if you need to also protect metadata.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    > The right thing to do is get yourself and your loved ones the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible; Signal is your best bet here. Cwtch/Briar if you need to also protect metadata. No, this is not the right move. It's engaging with the ecosystem of messaging products balancing ease of use, ethics of the business and people behind it, and your own threat profile. Most will never be under threat of a state actor that necessitates getting their friends and family "the hell out of Telegram as soon as possible". I also use Matrix but personally speaking I find Moxie Marlinspike a deeply unethical person who will gleefully slander the competition including up to suing them in his quest for supremacy. So I don't touch Signal because on my tripod of interests to balance, I don't want to go anywhere near his ethics. Use Signal or Session or Element or Telegram but stop telling people not to use a thing because you believe E2EE is the next Jesus Christ. Only sith deal in absolutes.

godelski 5y ago

The document is about what can be easily requested from companies, not what can be hacked. Because telegram hosts no servers in the US they can't trivially request it. They can get it other ways and of course by hacking. But the document isn't about what they can successfully hack or request through back channels. This is why people say that you have to trust Telegram, as opposed to fully E2EE systems (like Signal) which require (almost) zero trust.

skinkestek 5y ago

It is because you and others got your facts wrong. Telegram is not unencrypted. This is a lie spread by certain WhatsApp and Signal fanboys (not all, count me in with the Signal fans - I just happen to be a reasonable one that to some degree know what I'm talking about) with the excuse that "of course we mean end-to-end-encrypted when we say encrypted". What we see now is the resulting confusion: why don't law enforcement have access to it if it virtually unencrypted? Well, the answer is despite all claims of how lousy the encryption is for some weird reason[1] it doesn't seem to leak data. Now that we have seen the confusion that stems from saying "encrypted means end-to-end-encrypted when we say it does", can we stop repeating that nonsense? Also, can we think twice before mindlessly repeating such stuff in the future even if it was originally said by some extremely smart people that are well respected for good reasons? Because those very smart people were the same who recommended WhatsApp for a long time until it became painfully clear to everyone that: - WhatsApp leaks metadata to Facebook which cooperates happily with basically any government as far as I understand - WhatsApp has uploaded unencrypted backups to Google Cloud (yes, probably over https, but Google got all you messages and it was known that they would datamine it.) - and more¨ PS: Some time around half a year before Telegram launched WhatsApp actually sent data unencrypted, i.e. as plaintext. And they sent it over port 443..! PPS: Stay safe folks, opsec is probably more important than the exact messenger you use. My bets today are Signal in the short run and Matrix as soon as possible, but personally I send photos to my parents using Telegram and receive a lot more info back from various groups. [1]: Meaning either this is a bigger honeypot than An0m and everyone Three Letter Agency including both FSB and NSA are in on it or Telegram actually got something right. Or they have just been extremely lucky for 9 years in a row or something.

egberts1 5y ago
Telegram, as a capability, does not do “end-to-end encryption” for one-on-one chat. And Telegram most certainly cannot encrypt group chat.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  I does have, it is well known and it has existed for years. The remaining criticism now is that the default for one-on-one chats is still the more convenient normal point-to-point-encrypted chat type instead of E2E-encrypted (which, in Telegrams implementation is less convenient since it doesn't sync between clients, which again is reasonably for those messages where one really cares about secrecy in the context of day-to-day messaging apps). As usual: I only observe this from the outside. For what I know maybe Putin reads my messages before he goes to bed every night to fall asleep because I mostly use ordinary point-to-point encrypted messages which can be intercepted if Telegram is a secret FSB front or if Telegram isn't careful. Note however that for all we know maybe Biden reads my mail too to fall asleep since that too isn't end-to-end encrypted. I only comment on observable facts or statements that haven't been debunked. The last means I haven't verified the crypto of any app, I take it for granted that if it is broken someone will figure out just like when WhatsApp sent plaintext messages over port 443, and even faster with Telegram since there are so many who wants to find flaws in it.