3 ms·
I'd suggest you actually read the paper[1] you're referring to, because it's actually a lot less critical of Telegram's approach than you make it out to be. We
by diebeforei485 5y ago
I'd suggest you actually read the paper[1] you're referring to, because it's actually a lot less critical of Telegram's approach than you make it out to be.
We are better off that Telegram exists as an alternative. We don't need Signal's protocol (also used in Whatsapp etc) to be a potential SPOF.
To quote:
The central result of this work is a proof that the use of symmetric encryption in Telegram’s MTProto 2.0 can achieve the security of a robust bidirectional channel if small modifications are made.
1. https://mtpsym.github.io/paper.pdf https://mtpsym.github.io/paper.pdf
- chrisfosterelli 5y agoI have read this paper. Not sure where you feel I mischaracterized it. The section you just quoted goes on to discuss caveats, including a recommendation that they swap out their low level cryptographic implementation with one that uses a standard and well-vetted library, and then criticizes them for not having e2e on by default.