4 ms·

> The telegram protocol has been found to have issues that are, if not malicious, amateur level mistakes. Please provide evidence of such issues. Because at mo

> The telegram protocol has been found to have issues that are, if not malicious, amateur level mistakes. Please provide evidence of such issues. Because at most, the issues with MTProto were at the level of "we are not familiar with this, but seems ok". Which seem to be inflated by Signal activists into maliciousness. You do make bear service here.

Intermernet 2y ago
https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/469.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/469.pdf
- vetinari 2y ago
  From your own link: > Recently, in [MV21 ] MTProto 2.0 (the current version) was proven secure in a symbolic model, but assuming ideal building blocks and abstracting away all implementation/primitive details. Translation: it is secure, except for bugs, if any.
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    That's a generous translation! They were shown to be double-encrypting, using nonces where they weren't required, and generally making a bunch of mistakes that would be fine if they were writing a student level implementation of a secure messenger protocol, but not one that went on to be tacitly endorsed by a bunch of nation states! It's like a clunkier version of the backdoor in Dual EC DRBG. When problems like this are found, you can either assume deliberate malice (as in the case of NIST) or accidental incompetence. Either should be immediate grounds for not using the software. This isn't Flappy Bird. This is meant to be secure comms. The "This Is Fine" mentality doesn't cut it.
Intermernet 2y ago
"You do make bear service here." I'm not sure what this means.
- vetinari 2y ago
  > The meaning of "bear's service" originally comes from a fable about a man and a bear. The bear wanted to help the man by killing a gnat which sat on his forehead. As a result both the gnat and the man died. Basically, by being proactive you do more damage as if you didn't do anything.
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to be less proactive, I guess...
    - vetinari 2y ago
      Proactive is fine, if you know what is the overall impact. There's another: proactive idiot is worse than the class enemy[1]. [1] "Class enemy" or "třídní nepřítel" (cz) might be an unknown term in itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Uni...
      - Intermernet 2y ago
        Ok, apparently I can now reply to this comment... Weird HN delays aside. I don't care if the people who can decrypt Telegram chats are allied with any one side or another. I believe the idea of "Class enemy" to be abhorrent, and the moral / social threats of "the overall impact" to be negligible when compared to the fact that using compromised communications platforms will inevitably lead to greater problems than the act of calling them out. This is the equivalent of "You'll keep quiet if you know what's good for you". If Telegram is broken, certain people need to stop using it. The socio-political climate of the areas most likely to be using Telegram just makes this more urgent. This applies independent of if / how / why it's broken, and who, if anyone, may benefit from this.
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    Replying to this, as I can't reply to your down-thread reply for some reason. What if the gnat isn't a gnat? What if the gnat is another man who now knows the communications of the first man? I'm not saying the Bear should kill both, but I'm pointing out that the analogy falls apart when the gnat isn't just a mildly annoying third party.
rakoo 2y ago
https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/telegram-ecdh/ https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/telegram-ecdh/ EDIT: discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40315274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40315274

Intermernet 2y ago

https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/469.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/469.pdf

vetinari 2y ago
From your own link: > Recently, in [MV21 ] MTProto 2.0 (the current version) was proven secure in a symbolic model, but assuming ideal building blocks and abstracting away all implementation/primitive details. Translation: it is secure, except for bugs, if any.
- Intermernet 2y ago
  That's a generous translation! They were shown to be double-encrypting, using nonces where they weren't required, and generally making a bunch of mistakes that would be fine if they were writing a student level implementation of a secure messenger protocol, but not one that went on to be tacitly endorsed by a bunch of nation states! It's like a clunkier version of the backdoor in Dual EC DRBG. When problems like this are found, you can either assume deliberate malice (as in the case of NIST) or accidental incompetence. Either should be immediate grounds for not using the software. This isn't Flappy Bird. This is meant to be secure comms. The "This Is Fine" mentality doesn't cut it.

Intermernet 2y ago

"You do make bear service here." I'm not sure what this means.

vetinari 2y ago
> The meaning of "bear's service" originally comes from a fable about a man and a bear. The bear wanted to help the man by killing a gnat which sat on his forehead. As a result both the gnat and the man died. Basically, by being proactive you do more damage as if you didn't do anything.
- Intermernet 2y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to be less proactive, I guess...
  - vetinari 2y ago
    Proactive is fine, if you know what is the overall impact. There's another: proactive idiot is worse than the class enemy[1]. [1] "Class enemy" or "třídní nepřítel" (cz) might be an unknown term in itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Uni...
    - Intermernet 2y ago
      Ok, apparently I can now reply to this comment... Weird HN delays aside. I don't care if the people who can decrypt Telegram chats are allied with any one side or another. I believe the idea of "Class enemy" to be abhorrent, and the moral / social threats of "the overall impact" to be negligible when compared to the fact that using compromised communications platforms will inevitably lead to greater problems than the act of calling them out. This is the equivalent of "You'll keep quiet if you know what's good for you". If Telegram is broken, certain people need to stop using it. The socio-political climate of the areas most likely to be using Telegram just makes this more urgent. This applies independent of if / how / why it's broken, and who, if anyone, may benefit from this.
- Intermernet 2y ago
  Replying to this, as I can't reply to your down-thread reply for some reason. What if the gnat isn't a gnat? What if the gnat is another man who now knows the communications of the first man? I'm not saying the Bear should kill both, but I'm pointing out that the analogy falls apart when the gnat isn't just a mildly annoying third party.

rakoo 2y ago

https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/telegram-ecdh/ https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/telegram-ecdh/ EDIT: discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40315274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40315274