3 ms·

This has nothing to do with smugness. If you market your product as a secure alternative, it better be secure.

by sheepz 13y ago

igravious 13y ago
I understand the importance of security. I do hope Telegram can get it right. I acknowledge it is probably not as secure as they claim right now. I still maintain the article author's attitude just rubs me up the wrong way because of the mood I'm in - the smugness (and I hope I'm not imagining it) is definitely a side issue but one I felt I had to get off my chest. I don't want to make a big issue of it and detract too much from the critique but I felt I had to say it even though HN may not be the bestest place in the world to voice such things. I hear you though.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Given their attitude, it's unlikely they'll get it right. They'll keep telling people "that's not a real attack" and making up excuses. Then someone will publish a real attack, and they'll patch over it. Repeat. The "smugness" is pointing out problems in their implementation, despite them going on about having "ACM champions" that took two years to design it, so it obviously must be perfect. If someone pitched a database that simply mmap'd a file and then called it "fully transactional and safe", they'd get a lot of strong criticism.
  - h0cked 13y ago
    I am with you. ACM Champions mean a shit to me, and I have enough publications in crypto and secure communication to claim that I am a ACM Champion, and BTW I have a PHD actually related to security and crypto. But, NONE of my credentials is a valid argument about how secure my protocols are. This kind of attitude (trust us, we have enough credentials to show) seems to be a universal problem with people in academics. Come on, don't do this. We all get the sense that you have to bluff to get your paper published, but this is not going to work for a product to be accepted.

3 ms·

This has nothing to do with smugness. If you market your product as a secure alternative, it better be secure.

by sheepz 13y ago

This has nothing to do with smugness. If you market your product as a secure alternative, it better be secure.

igravious 13y ago
I understand the importance of security. I do hope Telegram can get it right. I acknowledge it is probably not as secure as they claim right now. I still maintain the article author's attitude just rubs me up the wrong way because of the mood I'm in - the smugness (and I hope I'm not imagining it) is definitely a side issue but one I felt I had to get off my chest. I don't want to make a big issue of it and detract too much from the critique but I felt I had to say it even though HN may not be the bestest place in the world to voice such things. I hear you though.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Given their attitude, it's unlikely they'll get it right. They'll keep telling people "that's not a real attack" and making up excuses. Then someone will publish a real attack, and they'll patch over it. Repeat. The "smugness" is pointing out problems in their implementation, despite them going on about having "ACM champions" that took two years to design it, so it obviously must be perfect. If someone pitched a database that simply mmap'd a file and then called it "fully transactional and safe", they'd get a lot of strong criticism.
  - h0cked 13y ago
    I am with you. ACM Champions mean a shit to me, and I have enough publications in crypto and secure communication to claim that I am a ACM Champion, and BTW I have a PHD actually related to security and crypto. But, NONE of my credentials is a valid argument about how secure my protocols are. This kind of attitude (trust us, we have enough credentials to show) seems to be a universal problem with people in academics. Come on, don't do this. We all get the sense that you have to bluff to get your paper published, but this is not going to work for a product to be accepted.