3 ms·

That user and the user you are replying to are not misinformed. They are perfectly correct. Telegram does not store messages in plaintext. Period. No matter h

That user and the user you are replying to are not misinformed. They are perfectly correct. Telegram does not store messages in plaintext. Period. No matter how shrill the cries from Moxie Marlinespike and his adherents, E2EE is not the only form of encryption. MTProto 2.0 is fully documented and everything the user linked described is true.

tptacek 2y ago
Nothing in the comment linked upthread is at all relevant to the analysis of Telegram we are discussing.
- emptysongglass 2y ago
  You don't get to make a false claim and then handwave it away. You made the claim and you were given evidence otherwise. This was not a case of a user confusing encryption in transit, as you claim.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    No false claim was made, and nothing in that thread was relevant to the analysis of this story or on this thread. I'm very comfortable leaving it there, and that the people who will take my word on none of this mattering are the only ones I need to care about. Do not use Telegram.
    - emptysongglass 2y ago
      The person you replied to wrote, > As another HN user pointed out Telegram does not store messages in plaintext: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228 Telegram does not store messages in plaintext. Your claim: > That user seems to be misinformed, and appears to be discussing client-server encryption, not end-to-end encryption Is categorically false. You do not get to redefine what encryption is. That is not your right. You've been corrected repeatedly. If you continue to insist you have not made a false claim, you are then lying.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No.
jiiam 2y ago
There is quite a large amount of people believing that Telegram stores messages in plaintext. I would like to know how they got that idea. So far the best I've got is something along the line of: if you can get your chats when you log in with a new device, then so can a Telegram employee. With no proof of the claim of course.
- barsonme 2y ago
  If the chat is not end-to-end encrypted, which Telegram “cloud” chats are not, then by definition Telegram (the company) has access to the chats. Full stop.
  - jiiam 2y ago
    Something being true only by definition is unfortunately a very weak claim. For example the company servers could be hosted on an island with armed guards instructed to burn everything if anyone approaches and the decryption happens only on those servers: sure they have access by definition, but they really don't.
    - usea 2y ago
      If the only thing stopping them from decrypting your messages is instructions to their own employees to not allow it to be done, that is not a defense against providing access to law enforcement. They can just change those instructions at any time without anybody knowing. Just like they can just change the server software to allow it.
      - jiiam 2y ago
        I mean at this point they could also change the code running on the user devices, probably someone would notice but that's another story. The point is: even if they could, should they do so when compelled by authority?
    - barsonme 2y ago
      On the contrary, it’s a very strong claim. The guards could decide they’re not getting paid enough and steal the data. Or the government could arrest them. Or the government could MITM the data center. Or any hundreds of different scenarios. At the end of the day, the only thing preventing somebody from accessing the data is that they just… don’t. This is very weak security and it is why cryptographers and security professionals call it “effectively plaintext.”

tptacek 2y ago

Nothing in the comment linked upthread is at all relevant to the analysis of Telegram we are discussing.

emptysongglass 2y ago
You don't get to make a false claim and then handwave it away. You made the claim and you were given evidence otherwise. This was not a case of a user confusing encryption in transit, as you claim.
- tptacek 2y ago
  No false claim was made, and nothing in that thread was relevant to the analysis of this story or on this thread. I'm very comfortable leaving it there, and that the people who will take my word on none of this mattering are the only ones I need to care about. Do not use Telegram.
  - emptysongglass 2y ago
    The person you replied to wrote, > As another HN user pointed out Telegram does not store messages in plaintext: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228 Telegram does not store messages in plaintext. Your claim: > That user seems to be misinformed, and appears to be discussing client-server encryption, not end-to-end encryption Is categorically false. You do not get to redefine what encryption is. That is not your right. You've been corrected repeatedly. If you continue to insist you have not made a false claim, you are then lying.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No.

jiiam 2y ago

There is quite a large amount of people believing that Telegram stores messages in plaintext. I would like to know how they got that idea. So far the best I've got is something along the line of: if you can get your chats when you log in with a new device, then so can a Telegram employee. With no proof of the claim of course.

barsonme 2y ago
If the chat is not end-to-end encrypted, which Telegram “cloud” chats are not, then by definition Telegram (the company) has access to the chats. Full stop.
- jiiam 2y ago
  Something being true only by definition is unfortunately a very weak claim. For example the company servers could be hosted on an island with armed guards instructed to burn everything if anyone approaches and the decryption happens only on those servers: sure they have access by definition, but they really don't.
  - usea 2y ago
    If the only thing stopping them from decrypting your messages is instructions to their own employees to not allow it to be done, that is not a defense against providing access to law enforcement. They can just change those instructions at any time without anybody knowing. Just like they can just change the server software to allow it.
    - jiiam 2y ago
      I mean at this point they could also change the code running on the user devices, probably someone would notice but that's another story. The point is: even if they could, should they do so when compelled by authority?
  - barsonme 2y ago
    On the contrary, it’s a very strong claim. The guards could decide they’re not getting paid enough and steal the data. Or the government could arrest them. Or the government could MITM the data center. Or any hundreds of different scenarios. At the end of the day, the only thing preventing somebody from accessing the data is that they just… don’t. This is very weak security and it is why cryptographers and security professionals call it “effectively plaintext.”