4 ms·

Encrypting messages for one person to read is relatively simple. Encrypting a message so that it can be read by multiple parties requires either sending multip

Encrypting messages for one person to read is relatively simple. Encrypting a message so that it can be read by multiple parties requires either sending multiple messages or agreeing a stable shared secret for the group chat. If you want to add/drop people from group seamlessly, while keeping everything encrypted, your app or your users will have to jump through lots of hoops. Most don't make the effort.

maqp 5y ago
It's also the case doing that securely required pushing the boundaries of modern cryptographic protocols. Telegram's protocol graphs are novices' doodles compared to Signal's group encryption stuff formally described here: https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/signal_private_group_system.pdf https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/signal_private_group_system.pdf
- hanniabu 5y ago
  On the other hand Signal has made a lot of questionable choices (such as adding a crypto payment that was just a money grab) that it has made me lost trust in the team and their motives. I no longer trust their build images and even if you build your own you have no idea what software the person you're talking to is running.
  - maqp 5y ago
    Sure, you do you. Personally I haven't seen anyone in e.g. the major infosec expert bubble abandon Signal for introducing mobilecoin. It's an opt-in feature, it doesn't make the message side security code harder to audit, and it's not like Moxie isn't painstakingly engineering everything to be secure from the get-go. I haven't once been disappointed in a new feature. OTOH consider Telegram that adds group video calls that nobody asked for: is it E2EE? Nope. Another security disparity to make explaining and understanding its security even more nightmarish.
    - hanniabu 5y ago
      Doesn't matter if signal is secure if nobody uses it. None of my friends are willing to use it because of the lack of features and horrible ui/ux.

maqp 5y ago

It's also the case doing that securely required pushing the boundaries of modern cryptographic protocols. Telegram's protocol graphs are novices' doodles compared to Signal's group encryption stuff formally described here: https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/signal_private_group_system.pdf https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/signal_private_group_system.pdf

hanniabu 5y ago
On the other hand Signal has made a lot of questionable choices (such as adding a crypto payment that was just a money grab) that it has made me lost trust in the team and their motives. I no longer trust their build images and even if you build your own you have no idea what software the person you're talking to is running.
- maqp 5y ago
  Sure, you do you. Personally I haven't seen anyone in e.g. the major infosec expert bubble abandon Signal for introducing mobilecoin. It's an opt-in feature, it doesn't make the message side security code harder to audit, and it's not like Moxie isn't painstakingly engineering everything to be secure from the get-go. I haven't once been disappointed in a new feature. OTOH consider Telegram that adds group video calls that nobody asked for: is it E2EE? Nope. Another security disparity to make explaining and understanding its security even more nightmarish.
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    Doesn't matter if signal is secure if nobody uses it. None of my friends are willing to use it because of the lack of features and horrible ui/ux.