8 ms·

Telegram reportedly surrendered user data to authorities

89 points by heikrana 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago
I love Telegram, but it is one of those apps that since it requires a phone number I don't really trust them with ultra-secret data. I think their E2E protocol is fairly sound, but even that isn't ideal. I think you may also get some minimum benefit by using the open-source Android app vs the Google Play Store app. Regardless, if you really desire secrecy (and I believe in privacy but would never advocate for serious crimes like mentioned in the article) then you're probably better off using Signal or XMPP.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > I think their E2E protocol is fairly sound How come? It's completely proprietary and it's never been audited.
  - str3wer 4y ago
    it has been audited, and they said it was a total mess and was full of vulnerabilities
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      Source? My cursory search hasn't found much wrong with the current protocol, though mtproto 1 relied on some rather weak cryptography which luckily got replaced years ago.
      - skrowl 4y ago
        Audited and found to be a mess is a complete lie. 0 encrypted telegram messages have ever been cracked. Full stop. They even took some ideas that people in the crypto had pointed out and updated their mtproto protocol to 2.0 https://core.tlgr.org/mtproto https://core.tlgr.org/mtproto
        str3wer 4y ago
        mess ≠ cracked
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Like other algorithms, it's a fairly simple mix of existing encryption paradigms. One paper tried to validate Telegram's protocol: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346702021_Automated_Symbolic_Verification_of_Telegram's_MTProto_20 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346702021_Automated... That seems to have gone well. The mechanisms used seem very similar to the mechanism used in Signal's last audit from 2017. Another paper only verified part of the protocol in a specific way: https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/sp/2022/131600a223/1wKCeeqzeLu https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/sp/2022/13... This last paper found flaws that should allow some side channel attacks (though I find it hard to believe that 3 microsecond differences can be measured against the client unless the attacker controls the server) but concludes that the protocol should be secure enough with their proposed fixes, which Telegram seems to have implemented; the problems mainly stem from implementation bugs, something the Signal protocol wasn't necessarily checked for during their extensive audit. Based on this research I can't say I can find much wrong with mtproto2. It's proprietary in the same way the Signal protocol is proprietary, in that it was originally invented for a specific purpose inside a specific app. Just because nobody has bothered to copy the protocol to their app like WhatsApp did with Signal doesn't mean it's any more or less secure. In the context of an app that can't encrypt group messaging and doesn't encrypt private messaging by default, I don't think focusing on the potential insecurity of mtproto2 makes sense. Telegram made some dubious, foolish security theatre ("hack our server and win a prize!") but on a protocol level there are no glaring mistakes that necessarily invalidate the protocol itself. The big problem here is that only a fraction of users actually use this seemingly-secure protocol on the first place.
    - jmprspret 4y ago
      Signal's protocol is not proprietary. You are mistaken
      - vetinari 4y ago
        The point of GP was that both Telegram and Signal have the same level of "proprietaryness". Either you call both proprietary, or neither. They are both documented, both have source code of implementation available.
- pards 4y ago
  Signal also requires a phone number, IIRC
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Yes, a significant flaw, however, it's not that difficult to source a disposable phone number.
    - dijit 4y ago
      That very much varies with country. Most countries I’m familiar with the rules for require ID when buying pre-pay SIM cards these days.
      - jotm 4y ago
        A prepaid SIM having the same security checks as a bank account definitely felt sour. And for some reason people think they have any privacy from the government.
        alldayeveryday 4y ago
        Is this the case now in the US? Is the "burner phone" a thing of the past?
        trevyn 4y ago
        No. I believe they may be required to ask for a name on activation, but definitely not to verify it. Individual retailers and service providers may have different policies, of course.
        jotm 4y ago
        My experience was in Germany. They checked my passport, face, name, address via PostIdent video. Same procedure as with N26 and ING online banks, though the latter didn't work due to connection problems so I had to do it at the post office. I like prepaid because I avoid contracts whenever I can. And I liked that I can get one fast. I understand the reasoning - they can tie an identity to any SIM card and find you pretty fast if your number/IMEI pops up in some suspicious communications, but still, privacy blah blah. This is the country that recently was against the EU wide chat surveillance directive that surfaces every few years now.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  For me, despite its flaws in E2E, Telegram is the sweet spot for small to medium sized groups. Easy to install, works on every platform I need it, super-simple bot support and the UX is very nice. You even have tools to make write-only groups (microblogs of sorts) and actual moderation tools for larger groups. For a "community", I'd pick Discord though. Matrix as a technology is a good competitor, but the UI/UX for every client I've tried rangers from "death by a thousand cuts" to atrocious. Case in point: I got a notification about a message on a channel on my phone from my Element client. I open it and what do I see? Not the message. A "Syncing" -message that lasts longer than I can stand to wait. My phone actually falls back to sleep and turns off the screen while I'm waiting for it to sync. And after it has synced, does clicking the notification take me to the channel? Of course not and now I've already forgotten where the notification was from.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    Sounds like you were running with an account on the default matrix.org server? It's gotten faster, but there were a bunch of months when it was dog slow. The point is kinda to run your own server.
    - theshrike79 4y ago
      I don't have the time to run my own infrastructure. That's why I pay someone else to host my mail, compute and everything else.
      - pkulak 4y ago
        You can pay someone to host a Matrix server too.
sgjohnson 4y ago
It doesn't actually even matter if they did this. The only thing that matters is that they are physically capable of doing so. Telegram is not e2e encrypted by default, and therefore you shouldn't use it if you're concerned about privacy. Look no further than Signal's supboenas and how they respond to them. With all the information they hold about an account. Which is just the creation date and last connection date. https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Terrible advice. If you want e2e you can choose to enable it. It is not enabled because many users choose to receive their messages across multiple personal devices simultaneously. This is not possible with e2e, which is why it is an option.
  - soziawa 4y ago
    > Terrible advice. If you want e2e you can choose to enable it. It is not enabled because many users choose to receive their messages across multiple personal devices simultaneously. This is not possible with e2e, which is why it is an option. Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage and Threema seem to do just fine.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      > iMessage Unrelated to this, but for all intents and purposes, iMessage cannot be considered e2e encrypted if either party has iCloud backups enabled. Apple has access to your iCloud backups, and they contain the iMessage keys.
      - arwineap 4y ago
        IIRC With the keys they can technically decrypt in line, backups are not required.
        4y ago
differentView 4y ago
>"To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments." A very specific way of saying what most would assume means their users' data is safe. Even if it's not an outright lie, allowing government agents to view user data in their office would not contradict their statement.
- krono 4y ago
  What is your definition of "disclosed"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclosed https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclosed
  - mixmixmix 4y ago
    His definition of "disclosed" is whatever fits his own narrative.
  - differentView 4y ago
    If a government agent asks for certain user data, a Telegram employee does a search and have it on their screen for the government agent to see. How many bytes would you say Telegram has disclosed?
    - krono 4y ago
      The exact number of bytes I wouldn't know, but they would certainly have disclosed all the information that was rendered on screen at that moment.
- mariusmg 4y ago
  Or printed on paper ?
ramesh31 4y ago
It's honestly not realistic to expect any free service provider to martyr themselves for your privacy. With that in mind, remember that anywhere you don't control the metal someone is watching you. Always.
- chimen 4y ago
  Unless the app claims it defends my privacy which is the only selling point many of these apps hold over Whatsapp for example.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  Even when you are running the metal - someone is always watching. Its just that their view is more limited.
- loeg 4y ago
  Sure, but Telegram has repeatedly made misleading claims about the privacy of their app and novel cryptographic protocol compared with alternative free services. The problem isn’t that Telegram disclosed data to lawful requests, it’s that (1) their marketing re privacy is at best misleading and (2) they had that data available to disclose.
hunglee2 4y ago
We either accept countries are sovereign over tech companies or not. If tech companies operate with the territory of a country or provide services to citizens in that country, we can expect that they would have to do so under the laws of that land. Those tech companies can choose to withdraw services if they have a problem with doing so. Twitter / FB et al withdrew from the Chinese market (they were not banned by the PRC, as erroneously understood) precisely because they refused to the subject to data requisition laws of this kind from the PRC
- namlem 4y ago
  Not necessarily. If a company doesn't engage in commerce then it can be based in one country and provide services in other countries regardless of their laws, so long as their home country is willing to resist attempts by other countries to prosecute them.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Americans and European should use Chinese chat providers and vice versa. No joking. Small Islandoneasea might be bullied to comply. Best would obviously be to use some FOSS true E2E encryption app that actually prompt you for accepting keys.
diebeforei485 4y ago
People use Telegram because they have a great user experience. Signal, unfortunately, does not - and it's not entirely because they're limited by E2EE.
- oezi 4y ago
  Having switched my family, friends and many colleagues to Signal, I am fairly confident to say that Signal's user experience is good enough.
  - skrowl 4y ago
    Signals experience when you want to use it on more than just 1 phone per person is still TERRIBLE compared to Telegram. If you use 2 computers, a phone, and a tablet and you want to use 1 Signal account on all 4, it's painful. BONUS: Signal uses crypto funded by the US govt and used by Facebook, so I don't really trust it.
- afroboy 4y ago
  99% of people i know using Telegram is for piracy stuffs, not the actual chat but i guess it's different in other countries.
- AnonHP 4y ago
  Signal does have an inferior experience. Signal has many UX issues, including the lack of a backup mechanism for iOS (if you lose your device or have to reset it, there is no way to restore old chats, and that’s by design). Additional irritants that nobody in the development team has thought about for years: * I decline Signal’s prompt to turn on notifications with the “Not now” button (there is no “No thanks” button). It responds with “We’ll remind you later” and nags me again in a few days. * I decline Signal’s prompt to share my contacts with it using the “Not now” button (there is no “No thanks” button). It responds with “We’ll remind you later” and nags me again in a few days. Signal may be good at security, but whoever designed the app has no respect for users’ time, and it doesn’t seem like they respect a user’s privacy choices either. Telegram, on the other hand, does not have E2EE chats by default, but the privacy features are far ahead.
tpoacher 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y ago
  "Reportedly" means that they've had a report (from Der Spiegel, who claims sources in the German police.) What you're doing here is simply lying. What it seems you want journalists to do is to report what they've heard as truth, and to disguise their sources. Or are you saying that Der Spiegel isn't a legitimate source and shouldn't be reported on? It's unintelligible.
- cokeandpepsi 4y ago
  they use Scrum?
Ansil849 4y ago
An advantage of Telegram over Signal or related apps is that if I am in a situation where I need to delete a message and leave no trace of it having been there then I can do this on Telegram. On Signal, if I delete a message it leaves a 'this message has been deleted' (or something to that effect) notification in the logs of the other party, which can be extremely undesirable behavior.
evandale 4y ago
Isn't Telegram the company that said Whatsapp can't be e2e encrypted because you can decrypt the messages in Google drive? Seems like a bit of a braindead claim now.
merricksb 4y ago
Large discussion about this topic here 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31619010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31619010 (210 points/182 comments)

89 points by heikrana 4y ago

I love Telegram, but it is one of those apps that since it requires a phone number I don't really trust them with ultra-secret data. I think their E2E protocol is fairly sound, but even that isn't ideal. I think you may also get some minimum benefit by using the open-source Android app vs the Google Play Store app. Regardless, if you really desire secrecy (and I believe in privacy but would never advocate for serious crimes like mentioned in the article) then you're probably better off using Signal or XMPP.

sgjohnson 4y ago
> I think their E2E protocol is fairly sound How come? It's completely proprietary and it's never been audited.
- str3wer 4y ago
  it has been audited, and they said it was a total mess and was full of vulnerabilities
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Source? My cursory search hasn't found much wrong with the current protocol, though mtproto 1 relied on some rather weak cryptography which luckily got replaced years ago.
    - skrowl 4y ago
      Audited and found to be a mess is a complete lie. 0 encrypted telegram messages have ever been cracked. Full stop. They even took some ideas that people in the crypto had pointed out and updated their mtproto protocol to 2.0 https://core.tlgr.org/mtproto https://core.tlgr.org/mtproto
      - str3wer 4y ago
        mess ≠ cracked
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Like other algorithms, it's a fairly simple mix of existing encryption paradigms. One paper tried to validate Telegram's protocol: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346702021_Automated_Symbolic_Verification_of_Telegram's_MTProto_20 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346702021_Automated... That seems to have gone well. The mechanisms used seem very similar to the mechanism used in Signal's last audit from 2017. Another paper only verified part of the protocol in a specific way: https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/sp/2022/131600a223/1wKCeeqzeLu https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/sp/2022/13... This last paper found flaws that should allow some side channel attacks (though I find it hard to believe that 3 microsecond differences can be measured against the client unless the attacker controls the server) but concludes that the protocol should be secure enough with their proposed fixes, which Telegram seems to have implemented; the problems mainly stem from implementation bugs, something the Signal protocol wasn't necessarily checked for during their extensive audit. Based on this research I can't say I can find much wrong with mtproto2. It's proprietary in the same way the Signal protocol is proprietary, in that it was originally invented for a specific purpose inside a specific app. Just because nobody has bothered to copy the protocol to their app like WhatsApp did with Signal doesn't mean it's any more or less secure. In the context of an app that can't encrypt group messaging and doesn't encrypt private messaging by default, I don't think focusing on the potential insecurity of mtproto2 makes sense. Telegram made some dubious, foolish security theatre ("hack our server and win a prize!") but on a protocol level there are no glaring mistakes that necessarily invalidate the protocol itself. The big problem here is that only a fraction of users actually use this seemingly-secure protocol on the first place.
  - jmprspret 4y ago
    Signal's protocol is not proprietary. You are mistaken
    - vetinari 4y ago
      The point of GP was that both Telegram and Signal have the same level of "proprietaryness". Either you call both proprietary, or neither. They are both documented, both have source code of implementation available.
pards 4y ago
Signal also requires a phone number, IIRC
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  Yes, a significant flaw, however, it's not that difficult to source a disposable phone number.
  - dijit 4y ago
    That very much varies with country. Most countries I’m familiar with the rules for require ID when buying pre-pay SIM cards these days.
    - jotm 4y ago
      A prepaid SIM having the same security checks as a bank account definitely felt sour. And for some reason people think they have any privacy from the government.
      - alldayeveryday 4y ago
        Is this the case now in the US? Is the "burner phone" a thing of the past?
        trevyn 4y ago
        No. I believe they may be required to ask for a name on activation, but definitely not to verify it. Individual retailers and service providers may have different policies, of course.
        jotm 4y ago
        My experience was in Germany. They checked my passport, face, name, address via PostIdent video. Same procedure as with N26 and ING online banks, though the latter didn't work due to connection problems so I had to do it at the post office. I like prepaid because I avoid contracts whenever I can. And I liked that I can get one fast. I understand the reasoning - they can tie an identity to any SIM card and find you pretty fast if your number/IMEI pops up in some suspicious communications, but still, privacy blah blah. This is the country that recently was against the EU wide chat surveillance directive that surfaces every few years now.
theshrike79 4y ago
For me, despite its flaws in E2E, Telegram is the sweet spot for small to medium sized groups. Easy to install, works on every platform I need it, super-simple bot support and the UX is very nice. You even have tools to make write-only groups (microblogs of sorts) and actual moderation tools for larger groups. For a "community", I'd pick Discord though. Matrix as a technology is a good competitor, but the UI/UX for every client I've tried rangers from "death by a thousand cuts" to atrocious. Case in point: I got a notification about a message on a channel on my phone from my Element client. I open it and what do I see? Not the message. A "Syncing" -message that lasts longer than I can stand to wait. My phone actually falls back to sleep and turns off the screen while I'm waiting for it to sync. And after it has synced, does clicking the notification take me to the channel? Of course not and now I've already forgotten where the notification was from.
- pkulak 4y ago
  Sounds like you were running with an account on the default matrix.org server? It's gotten faster, but there were a bunch of months when it was dog slow. The point is kinda to run your own server.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    I don't have the time to run my own infrastructure. That's why I pay someone else to host my mail, compute and everything else.
    - pkulak 4y ago
      You can pay someone to host a Matrix server too.

sgjohnson 4y ago

It doesn't actually even matter if they did this. The only thing that matters is that they are physically capable of doing so. Telegram is not e2e encrypted by default, and therefore you shouldn't use it if you're concerned about privacy. Look no further than Signal's supboenas and how they respond to them. With all the information they hold about an account. Which is just the creation date and last connection date. https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/ https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/

orangepurple 4y ago
Terrible advice. If you want e2e you can choose to enable it. It is not enabled because many users choose to receive their messages across multiple personal devices simultaneously. This is not possible with e2e, which is why it is an option.
- soziawa 4y ago
  > Terrible advice. If you want e2e you can choose to enable it. It is not enabled because many users choose to receive their messages across multiple personal devices simultaneously. This is not possible with e2e, which is why it is an option. Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage and Threema seem to do just fine.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    > iMessage Unrelated to this, but for all intents and purposes, iMessage cannot be considered e2e encrypted if either party has iCloud backups enabled. Apple has access to your iCloud backups, and they contain the iMessage keys.
    - arwineap 4y ago
      IIRC With the keys they can technically decrypt in line, backups are not required.
      - 4y ago

differentView 4y ago

>"To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments." A very specific way of saying what most would assume means their users' data is safe. Even if it's not an outright lie, allowing government agents to view user data in their office would not contradict their statement.

krono 4y ago
What is your definition of "disclosed"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclosed https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disclosed
- mixmixmix 4y ago
  His definition of "disclosed" is whatever fits his own narrative.
- differentView 4y ago
  If a government agent asks for certain user data, a Telegram employee does a search and have it on their screen for the government agent to see. How many bytes would you say Telegram has disclosed?
  - krono 4y ago
    The exact number of bytes I wouldn't know, but they would certainly have disclosed all the information that was rendered on screen at that moment.
mariusmg 4y ago
Or printed on paper ?

ramesh31 4y ago

It's honestly not realistic to expect any free service provider to martyr themselves for your privacy. With that in mind, remember that anywhere you don't control the metal someone is watching you. Always.

chimen 4y ago
Unless the app claims it defends my privacy which is the only selling point many of these apps hold over Whatsapp for example.
alldayeveryday 4y ago
Even when you are running the metal - someone is always watching. Its just that their view is more limited.
loeg 4y ago
Sure, but Telegram has repeatedly made misleading claims about the privacy of their app and novel cryptographic protocol compared with alternative free services. The problem isn’t that Telegram disclosed data to lawful requests, it’s that (1) their marketing re privacy is at best misleading and (2) they had that data available to disclose.

hunglee2 4y ago

We either accept countries are sovereign over tech companies or not. If tech companies operate with the territory of a country or provide services to citizens in that country, we can expect that they would have to do so under the laws of that land. Those tech companies can choose to withdraw services if they have a problem with doing so. Twitter / FB et al withdrew from the Chinese market (they were not banned by the PRC, as erroneously understood) precisely because they refused to the subject to data requisition laws of this kind from the PRC

namlem 4y ago
Not necessarily. If a company doesn't engage in commerce then it can be based in one country and provide services in other countries regardless of their laws, so long as their home country is willing to resist attempts by other countries to prosecute them.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Americans and European should use Chinese chat providers and vice versa. No joking. Small Islandoneasea might be bullied to comply. Best would obviously be to use some FOSS true E2E encryption app that actually prompt you for accepting keys.

diebeforei485 4y ago

People use Telegram because they have a great user experience. Signal, unfortunately, does not - and it's not entirely because they're limited by E2EE.

oezi 4y ago
Having switched my family, friends and many colleagues to Signal, I am fairly confident to say that Signal's user experience is good enough.
- skrowl 4y ago
  Signals experience when you want to use it on more than just 1 phone per person is still TERRIBLE compared to Telegram. If you use 2 computers, a phone, and a tablet and you want to use 1 Signal account on all 4, it's painful. BONUS: Signal uses crypto funded by the US govt and used by Facebook, so I don't really trust it.
afroboy 4y ago
99% of people i know using Telegram is for piracy stuffs, not the actual chat but i guess it's different in other countries.
AnonHP 4y ago
Signal does have an inferior experience. Signal has many UX issues, including the lack of a backup mechanism for iOS (if you lose your device or have to reset it, there is no way to restore old chats, and that’s by design). Additional irritants that nobody in the development team has thought about for years: * I decline Signal’s prompt to turn on notifications with the “Not now” button (there is no “No thanks” button). It responds with “We’ll remind you later” and nags me again in a few days. * I decline Signal’s prompt to share my contacts with it using the “Not now” button (there is no “No thanks” button). It responds with “We’ll remind you later” and nags me again in a few days. Signal may be good at security, but whoever designed the app has no respect for users’ time, and it doesn’t seem like they respect a user’s privacy choices either. Telegram, on the other hand, does not have E2EE chats by default, but the privacy features are far ahead.

tpoacher 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago
"Reportedly" means that they've had a report (from Der Spiegel, who claims sources in the German police.) What you're doing here is simply lying. What it seems you want journalists to do is to report what they've heard as truth, and to disguise their sources. Or are you saying that Der Spiegel isn't a legitimate source and shouldn't be reported on? It's unintelligible.
cokeandpepsi 4y ago
they use Scrum?

Ansil849 4y ago

An advantage of Telegram over Signal or related apps is that if I am in a situation where I need to delete a message and leave no trace of it having been there then I can do this on Telegram. On Signal, if I delete a message it leaves a 'this message has been deleted' (or something to that effect) notification in the logs of the other party, which can be extremely undesirable behavior.

evandale 4y ago

Isn't Telegram the company that said Whatsapp can't be e2e encrypted because you can decrypt the messages in Google drive? Seems like a bit of a braindead claim now.

merricksb 4y ago

Large discussion about this topic here 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31619010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31619010 (210 points/182 comments)