8 ms·

I remember seeing this bug years ago. As Filippo mentions at the end, I'm still not sure whether to attribute this to malice or incompetence as per Hanlon's raz

I remember seeing this bug years ago. As Filippo mentions at the end, I'm still not sure whether to attribute this to malice or incompetence as per Hanlon's razor. I have not really followed what's up with Telegram lately, but I recall they had a rather brusque attitude towards the cryptography community at the time: "we have maths PhDs!", "Here's an encrypted message with no other context whatsoever: 0x459457453494530453409abc74f, $1 million if you can break it. No? Didn't think so!". To be honest, their consistent hubris at the time combined with (as far as I'm aware?) no other suspicious code (in the sense of backdoors, not just weird crypto) since, actually leads me to think it might genuinely be incompetence rather than a deliberate backdoor. I do think it's true that the security community can be a little outraged and not very welcoming to newcomers in the space if they get anything wrong: even Signal, pretty much the gold standard, receives constant (in my opinion, unfair) criticism for not being federated. Though, given the high stakes, I suppose this can be forgiven.

godelski 5y ago
The thing I'm most confused about is why Signal and Telegram are always seen as competing. WhatsApp has better encryption than Telegram, but then again, the bar is so low it's unfair. The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena. Though someone did make a feature request that could be something that's kinda middle ground and seems more in line with Signal's philosophy[0]. Personally I think Signal works so well because you don't have to worry about servers, domains, and whatever. It just works. Exactly like texting. It's for the masses, not us nerds. I want to see Matrix grow, but I don't see it being usable by the masses anytime soon. [0] https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402/8 https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402/8
- sjburt 5y ago
  I think it's because Signal and Telegram are the leading non-FAANG, non-SMS options.
  - azalemeth 5y ago
    Particularly with WhatsApp I think also a big reason is also the metadata. People want to leave it, and are looking for somewhere to go. Any "where" is therefore competing.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena No, it's as huge issue. You cannot trust yet another walled garden. Especially when there's no way to verify the servers.
  - godelski 5y ago
    But if the app is working correctly you shouldn't have to trust the servers. I thought that was the whole point.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      No, that's a misunderstanding. Signal is vulnerable to timing correlation. An observer on the servers or on network devices nearby can easily infer the social graph of users: at what time they communicate, with whom and how often. This is not a minor issue. Quote from the former CIA director: 'We kill people based on metadata'.
      - godelski 5y ago
        So the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal because then that metadata is noisy. It's impossible to have a system with zero metadata but it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house. Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw.
        goodpoint 5y ago
        > the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal Wrong. Do they all use the very same server? No, and therefore timing attacks are still there. > it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house Wrong. There are protocols designed to provide good security in the first place, like Briar. > Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw Also wrong. Federation makes timing attacks very difficult, especially when servers are delocalized because it increases the amount of access required by any global observer. I'm going to stop replying. You clearly are not familiar with the topic.
  - 5y ago
- eitland 5y ago
  > The thing I'm most confused about is why Signal and Telegram are always seen as competing. Well, this is a good question. Telegram is an allround day-to-day messenger with channels, massive groups, broadcasts etc that also works as a login provider while Signal is a research project to create a secure messenger and also something about crypto coins ;-) Yet, while Telegrams encryption scheme has left a lot to be wished for and their communication has been arrogant: - Signal has had more than one really bad security problems like remotely exploitable XSS in desktop app and that rather long time span when Signal sometimes sent images to wrong recipients - Meanwhile Telegram hasn't seen such problems since they were starting out And WhatsApp? Why it is even mentioned in a discussion about secure messaging after all the blunders they've made I don't know: - Sending deliberately unencrypted backups to Google with the intention that Google could datamine them. - Lately there has also been talk about "filtering content on the edges". So much for E2E-encryption when the endpoints report your content through a separate channel. I believe in Signal and E2E-encryption, but, as I have said a number of times and a number of ways before: There is a lot more to security than just cool algorithms and buzzwords. All the E2E-encryption in the world doesn't save you when the service provider gets away with the abuses WhatsApp have been caught red handed with and no algorithm saves you when you can get remotely exploited by receiving a message. Some might think I am extremely pro Telegram. I have one place where I want a lot less of it: It really scares me when I see police use it. For any kind of communication that needs to be super secure: stay far away!
  - FiloSottile 5y ago
    Can you keep elaborating about the abuses that WhatsApp has been caught red handed with? You mentioned only unencrypted OS backups (which were a major issue, but also industry standard, affecting everything but Signal which takes a severe usability hit over it, and apparently fixed https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-end-to-end-encrypted-backup https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-end-to-end-encr...). "Filtering content on the edges" is a whole debate but not something that ever materialized. It sounds there's a list, what are the others?
    - SahAssar 5y ago
- egberts1 5y ago
  WhatsApp’s Biggest problem is the lack of a default ENCRYPTION-ENABLeD for group chat.
  - md_ 5y ago
    Doesn’t Telegram not even support e2ee for group chats?
    - egberts1 5y ago
      That’s right, nothing like default-EE2E-enabled group chat, viewable and auditable server code, AND encrypted-data-at-rest; like Signal, unlike Telegram.
  - Moodles 5y ago
    WhatsApp group chats are E2E. I actually worked on this. It is true (unless they’ve changed it) that the precise security guarantees of the group protocol are different, but it is still ends-to-ends encrypted.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
It doesn't really matter whether it was incompetence vs deliberate weakening. The end result is the same: not secure. They're a russian-HQ'd and staffed company which alone makes them suspect, and the government seems to have no problem with them, which doubles the suspicion given it's a perfect tool for anti-government groups and terrorists and if the FSB couldn't read everything, they'd be harassing the company, its founders, etc.

godelski 5y ago

The thing I'm most confused about is why Signal and Telegram are always seen as competing. WhatsApp has better encryption than Telegram, but then again, the bar is so low it's unfair. The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena. Though someone did make a feature request that could be something that's kinda middle ground and seems more in line with Signal's philosophy[0]. Personally I think Signal works so well because you don't have to worry about servers, domains, and whatever. It just works. Exactly like texting. It's for the masses, not us nerds. I want to see Matrix grow, but I don't see it being usable by the masses anytime soon. [0] https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402/8 https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402/8

sjburt 5y ago
I think it's because Signal and Telegram are the leading non-FAANG, non-SMS options.
- azalemeth 5y ago
  Particularly with WhatsApp I think also a big reason is also the metadata. People want to leave it, and are looking for somewhere to go. Any "where" is therefore competing.
goodpoint 5y ago
> The unfederatedness of Signal seems to be a HN phenomena No, it's as huge issue. You cannot trust yet another walled garden. Especially when there's no way to verify the servers.
- godelski 5y ago
  But if the app is working correctly you shouldn't have to trust the servers. I thought that was the whole point.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    No, that's a misunderstanding. Signal is vulnerable to timing correlation. An observer on the servers or on network devices nearby can easily infer the social graph of users: at what time they communicate, with whom and how often. This is not a minor issue. Quote from the former CIA director: 'We kill people based on metadata'.
    - godelski 5y ago
      So the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal because then that metadata is noisy. It's impossible to have a system with zero metadata but it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house. Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw.
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        > the solution to that is get a lot of people on Signal Wrong. Do they all use the very same server? No, and therefore timing attacks are still there. > it's very clear that Signal is the best game in house Wrong. There are protocols designed to provide good security in the first place, like Briar. > Timing attacks aren't solved by federation btw Also wrong. Federation makes timing attacks very difficult, especially when servers are delocalized because it increases the amount of access required by any global observer. I'm going to stop replying. You clearly are not familiar with the topic.
- 5y ago
eitland 5y ago
> The thing I'm most confused about is why Signal and Telegram are always seen as competing. Well, this is a good question. Telegram is an allround day-to-day messenger with channels, massive groups, broadcasts etc that also works as a login provider while Signal is a research project to create a secure messenger and also something about crypto coins ;-) Yet, while Telegrams encryption scheme has left a lot to be wished for and their communication has been arrogant: - Signal has had more than one really bad security problems like remotely exploitable XSS in desktop app and that rather long time span when Signal sometimes sent images to wrong recipients - Meanwhile Telegram hasn't seen such problems since they were starting out And WhatsApp? Why it is even mentioned in a discussion about secure messaging after all the blunders they've made I don't know: - Sending deliberately unencrypted backups to Google with the intention that Google could datamine them. - Lately there has also been talk about "filtering content on the edges". So much for E2E-encryption when the endpoints report your content through a separate channel. I believe in Signal and E2E-encryption, but, as I have said a number of times and a number of ways before: There is a lot more to security than just cool algorithms and buzzwords. All the E2E-encryption in the world doesn't save you when the service provider gets away with the abuses WhatsApp have been caught red handed with and no algorithm saves you when you can get remotely exploited by receiving a message. Some might think I am extremely pro Telegram. I have one place where I want a lot less of it: It really scares me when I see police use it. For any kind of communication that needs to be super secure: stay far away!
- FiloSottile 5y ago
  Can you keep elaborating about the abuses that WhatsApp has been caught red handed with? You mentioned only unencrypted OS backups (which were a major issue, but also industry standard, affecting everything but Signal which takes a severe usability hit over it, and apparently fixed https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-end-to-end-encrypted-backup https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-end-to-end-encr...). "Filtering content on the edges" is a whole debate but not something that ever materialized. It sounds there's a list, what are the others?
  - SahAssar 5y ago
egberts1 5y ago
WhatsApp’s Biggest problem is the lack of a default ENCRYPTION-ENABLeD for group chat.
- md_ 5y ago
  Doesn’t Telegram not even support e2ee for group chats?
  - egberts1 5y ago
    That’s right, nothing like default-EE2E-enabled group chat, viewable and auditable server code, AND encrypted-data-at-rest; like Signal, unlike Telegram.
- Moodles 5y ago
  WhatsApp group chats are E2E. I actually worked on this. It is true (unless they’ve changed it) that the precise security guarantees of the group protocol are different, but it is still ends-to-ends encrypted.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

It doesn't really matter whether it was incompetence vs deliberate weakening. The end result is the same: not secure. They're a russian-HQ'd and staffed company which alone makes them suspect, and the government seems to have no problem with them, which doubles the suspicion given it's a perfect tool for anti-government groups and terrorists and if the FSB couldn't read everything, they'd be harassing the company, its founders, etc.