12 ms·

It's a little frustrating to see that the most secure (yet still usable) alternatives aren't the most popular (perhaps with the exception of iMessage, although

It's a little frustrating to see that the most secure (yet still usable) alternatives aren't the most popular (perhaps with the exception of iMessage, although 95% of the security of those messages is compromised anyway by the backup system that's enabled by default). I like to tell myself that this is because the really good open source options don't have enough money or clout to make themselves popular, while apps like Whatsapp or Skype or Telegram do. It's just unfortunate that the least secure apps and services get pushed to the mainstream simply because of money.

robmcm 11y ago
Why not promote them here? What are the "the really good open source options"?
- darklajid 11y ago
  I think the consensus here is that TextSecure (and whatever the iOS client is called) is the Right Thing. Personally, I'm doing a last effort to use xmpp right now (just in the process to migrate to the unreleased prosody 0.10 for some features that I require) and otherwise Telegram looks like the 'sanest' option so far. Doesn't require a phone number as identifier Clients for ~all~ platforms that I care about
  - aroch 11y ago
    TextSecure doesn't work more than 50% of the time for me. Messages I send never get delivered, or they get delivered and replies disappear. Or they send and show up 2 days later. Or the client cannot cope with key changes and just fails to do anything whatsoever
  - skrowl 11y ago
    TextSecure = no web, windows, linux, or OS X client. Automatic fail for my uses.
    - e12e 11y ago
      You can help with that if you want: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser
cynic_ 11y ago
What's wrong with Telegram?
- lloeki 11y ago
  Back in the day, one of the main arguments were that they're "rolling their own crypto", although I don't know how it stands today[0]. [0]: https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-custom-protocol https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-cus...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- darklajid 11y ago
  Arguments as far as I'm aware (please correct me where I'm wrong): - Crypto is 'home made' and - in spite of their crypto-challenges (or, as another school of thought states, related to the fact of trying to use these challenges to appear 'secure') unproven - End to end encryption isn't the default
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
    I'm looking at this: https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-are-you-mostly-relying-on-classical-crypto-algorithms https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-are-you-mostly-relyi... While there seem to be "home made" elements, these are in how they are combining well-known cryptosystems. So there may well be flaws in how they put it together or in the implementation, it doesn't appear to be a classic case of "home made" snake oil encryption. Also, it seems to be public, not the usual "trade secret" of snake oil.
    - Nursie 11y ago
      So to me a 'cryptosystem' is the way the elements are combined. Block ciphers are used in a selection of modes and when combined into a protocol with integrity and authentication catered for, we have a cryptosystem. Constructing these is hard, even with well-known algorithms, and is the source of many sneaky attack vectors. The fact that they have effectively invented their own mode is suspect, and the cryptosystem as a whole is not really well-validated either. Their "$300,000 if you break it" contest is seen as a trust-gimmick as it provides no cryptographical or mathematical guarantees, it simply shows that nobody has yet broken it for whom 300k is more important than access to the data.
m52go 11y ago
Telegram is not governed by VCs or large corporations with ambiguous ties to government. Its code is open-source. It hasn't needed to spend money to make itself popular...its users did it for them. Which you could really say about all the services you mentioned. The difference is in who's footing the bill for all the other costs. The founder of Telegram is a privacy and civil liberties activist who has publicly committed to keeping Telegram as secure as possible, and that until a revenue model is determined that honors that standard, he'll continue funding it on his own (he's loaded from equity in VKontakte). What else are you looking for?
- castratikron 11y ago
  Just thought I would mention that only the client is libre; the server is still closed.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The default protocol is share everything with the server: https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram That is clearly prioritizing user convenience over "as secure as possible".
  - shawabawa3 11y ago
    Without prioritising user convenience you do get the best security, mainly because you have zero users to protect Yes, it could be better, but it's still better than whatsapp, facebook messenger and sms (I'm a telegram user, and wouldn't be if it didn't sync across devices)
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      When security is important, users are far better off not using anything than they are using something that they have misunderstood to be secure. So the share with server by default, brag about security approach is really bad, especially in the instances where the need for security is very clear. It also seems to be the case that Telegram is not making users aware enough of the importance of verifying the keys used to establish the secret chats (see the link here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538879 , users are sharing channel keys over the channel they are trying to establish). So there is a second level of traps that a user has to avoid to even have a chance of using Telegram securely.
Nursie 11y ago
What's the popularity of 'WhatsApp' like at the moment? IIRC the folks at Open Whisper Systems (TextSecure, Redphone and Signal) did some work with them to integrate the TextSecure protocol into that. So while I use TextSecure with friends who are happy to use that, I'm not upset about using WhatsApp with others as it's more mainstream and friendly, but has decent security under the hood.
- darklajid 11y ago
  As far as I'm aware: - Your WhatsApp messages don't use that 'security' by default (or do they?) - That thing isn't open source and they could rip or swap out any encryption support they offer
  - Nursie 11y ago
    I think it's on by default. I could be wrong, it's worth checking now you mention it! And I know they didn't implement it for group chats, only 1-1 so far. And yes, you're correct, they could rip it out at any moment, in fact they could already have done so, and as a facebook subsidiary I'm not huge on the idea of trusting them. OTOH getting the whisper systems folks in was positive and from reading what they wrote about it, it didn't seem they were just being used for a PR exercise.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    WhatsApp only uses encryption if both people are using Android and if the server approves it. There's also no way to know whether you're using it or not. I feel that Silent Text is omitted from these lists too frequently, unfortunately, as it's one of the most secure texting apps currently on the market (I would know, I work for SC).
    - Tepix 11y ago
      Silent Text is $10/month or so that's why there is no mass adoption.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
collyw 11y ago
I think a lot of it is timing and momentum. I just bought an Ubuntu phone only to discover there is no whatsapp on it. I am happy to use Telegram, but convincing friends is an uphill battle.
mahouse 11y ago
WhatsApp was first, that's all
jszymborski 11y ago
It 100% isn't about popularity, it's about usability. I tried to get my friends on Tox, but ultimately had to get them on Telegram because it was the only app that was truly 100% cross-platform.
- aet 11y ago
  Text messaging is cross platform
  - jszymborski 11y ago
    It doesn't have any desktop platforms, which was a critical criteria, and it doesn't support group chat in the way we needed it.
- e12e 11y ago
  Yeah, because xmpp doesn't exist.
  - darklajid 11y ago
    You got my upvote and I stated elsewhere in this thread that I'm currently upgrading my xmpp server (to the unreleased 0.10 version of prosody). But let's be honest: xmpp is still not there. To have something comparable to what these clients offer you need a good number of extensions, notably (ymmv) - Message carbons (i.e. a message reaches all online devices) - Stream management (because without it, people are going to consider xmpp broken. "It loses my messages") - MAM (for shared archives between clients/devices, the reason for me upgrading to an unstable server now) Given that one of these isn't even (widely) available so far, I'd say xmpp is in a bad position. I love the idea. But it's hard to imagine that it can gain traction right now, given that the 'only' thing it has to offer against all the other systems is federation. I care about that. But .. most don't.
    - e12e 11y ago
      You know, I've always been planning to set up my own xmpp server, so I haven't looked to hard at the public offerings. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any good list over public service providers -- one that includes things like does the server support server side archiving etc. I was hopeful when I saw that duckduckgo[ddg], fastmail[fm] and mailbox.org[m] had public chat services. But of the three, none support standard archiving [XEP-0136] and only fastmail supports a custom form of archiving (via special emails to your fastmail-account). The latter at least gives you an option to archive chats (for eg: search) -- but it appears there's a market for a good, public and full-featured xmpp/chat service. Most of the other public servers appear to a) be free-only -- not a business -- and b) focused on privacy. I find it a bit surprising that noone has tried launching a free+paid option -- say reserving some features for paying users (and charge maybe 1 USD/month?). Actually, I think duckduckgo.com would be happy to "host" a services free tier -- have a trial account mode, and point user that just want a free chat service to ddg. Ddg gets more registered users, more users of their services, and those that are willing to pay for some features (eg: server side archiving, server side notes... others?) can pay a small amount for the service. Only draw back would be no seamless transition from one to the other (change of username/domain). On the plus side, all my trial accounts can talk to each other without problem (via server side federation) -- it just works. [ddg] https://duck.co/blog/using-pidgin-with-xmpp-jabber https://duck.co/blog/using-pidgin-with-xmpp-jabber [fm] https://www.fastmail.com/help/clients/chat.html https://www.fastmail.com/help/clients/chat.html [m] https://mailbox.org/en/mailbox-org-launched-secure-instant-messaging-service/ https://mailbox.org/en/mailbox-org-launched-secure-instant-m... [l] https://list.jabber.at/ https://list.jabber.at/ [edit: And while mailbox.org has an interesting offering, like some kind of deal with yubikey -- they seem to have neglected their xmpp setup somewhat -- there are some issues with ssl certs. Pidigin can't seem to figure out that xmpp at fastmail is chat.messagingengine.com, nor that mailbox uses xmpp.mailbox.org. Both give additional certificate errors if not adjusted. I suppose fastmail hasn't set up srv-records/dns aliases for their vanity domains (I registered mm.st -- as it was the shortest). It'd be better if one could just type in <user>@mm.st and have everything work. The bug might be in Pidgin, but fm really needs to test things. Of the three, ddg was by far the easiest to get started with -- register right in the im client (which also generates an account that works for ddg); and go.]

robmcm 11y ago

Why not promote them here? What are the "the really good open source options"?

darklajid 11y ago
I think the consensus here is that TextSecure (and whatever the iOS client is called) is the Right Thing. Personally, I'm doing a last effort to use xmpp right now (just in the process to migrate to the unreleased prosody 0.10 for some features that I require) and otherwise Telegram looks like the 'sanest' option so far. Doesn't require a phone number as identifier Clients for ~all~ platforms that I care about
- aroch 11y ago
  TextSecure doesn't work more than 50% of the time for me. Messages I send never get delivered, or they get delivered and replies disappear. Or they send and show up 2 days later. Or the client cannot cope with key changes and just fails to do anything whatsoever
- skrowl 11y ago
  TextSecure = no web, windows, linux, or OS X client. Automatic fail for my uses.
  - e12e 11y ago
    You can help with that if you want: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Browser

cynic_ 11y ago

What's wrong with Telegram?

lloeki 11y ago
Back in the day, one of the main arguments were that they're "rolling their own crypto", although I don't know how it stands today[0]. [0]: https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-custom-protocol https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-cus...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
darklajid 11y ago
Arguments as far as I'm aware (please correct me where I'm wrong): - Crypto is 'home made' and - in spite of their crypto-challenges (or, as another school of thought states, related to the fact of trying to use these challenges to appear 'secure') unproven - End to end encryption isn't the default
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  I'm looking at this: https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-are-you-mostly-relying-on-classical-crypto-algorithms https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-are-you-mostly-relyi... While there seem to be "home made" elements, these are in how they are combining well-known cryptosystems. So there may well be flaws in how they put it together or in the implementation, it doesn't appear to be a classic case of "home made" snake oil encryption. Also, it seems to be public, not the usual "trade secret" of snake oil.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    So to me a 'cryptosystem' is the way the elements are combined. Block ciphers are used in a selection of modes and when combined into a protocol with integrity and authentication catered for, we have a cryptosystem. Constructing these is hard, even with well-known algorithms, and is the source of many sneaky attack vectors. The fact that they have effectively invented their own mode is suspect, and the cryptosystem as a whole is not really well-validated either. Their "$300,000 if you break it" contest is seen as a trust-gimmick as it provides no cryptographical or mathematical guarantees, it simply shows that nobody has yet broken it for whom 300k is more important than access to the data.

m52go 11y ago

Telegram is not governed by VCs or large corporations with ambiguous ties to government. Its code is open-source. It hasn't needed to spend money to make itself popular...its users did it for them. Which you could really say about all the services you mentioned. The difference is in who's footing the bill for all the other costs. The founder of Telegram is a privacy and civil liberties activist who has publicly committed to keeping Telegram as secure as possible, and that until a revenue model is determined that honors that standard, he'll continue funding it on his own (he's loaded from equity in VKontakte). What else are you looking for?

castratikron 11y ago
Just thought I would mention that only the client is libre; the server is still closed.
maxerickson 11y ago
The default protocol is share everything with the server: https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram That is clearly prioritizing user convenience over "as secure as possible".
- shawabawa3 11y ago
  Without prioritising user convenience you do get the best security, mainly because you have zero users to protect Yes, it could be better, but it's still better than whatsapp, facebook messenger and sms (I'm a telegram user, and wouldn't be if it didn't sync across devices)
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    When security is important, users are far better off not using anything than they are using something that they have misunderstood to be secure. So the share with server by default, brag about security approach is really bad, especially in the instances where the need for security is very clear. It also seems to be the case that Telegram is not making users aware enough of the importance of verifying the keys used to establish the secret chats (see the link here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538879 , users are sharing channel keys over the channel they are trying to establish). So there is a second level of traps that a user has to avoid to even have a chance of using Telegram securely.

Nursie 11y ago

What's the popularity of 'WhatsApp' like at the moment? IIRC the folks at Open Whisper Systems (TextSecure, Redphone and Signal) did some work with them to integrate the TextSecure protocol into that. So while I use TextSecure with friends who are happy to use that, I'm not upset about using WhatsApp with others as it's more mainstream and friendly, but has decent security under the hood.

darklajid 11y ago
As far as I'm aware: - Your WhatsApp messages don't use that 'security' by default (or do they?) - That thing isn't open source and they could rip or swap out any encryption support they offer
- Nursie 11y ago
  I think it's on by default. I could be wrong, it's worth checking now you mention it! And I know they didn't implement it for group chats, only 1-1 so far. And yes, you're correct, they could rip it out at any moment, in fact they could already have done so, and as a facebook subsidiary I'm not huge on the idea of trusting them. OTOH getting the whisper systems folks in was positive and from reading what they wrote about it, it didn't seem they were just being used for a PR exercise.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  WhatsApp only uses encryption if both people are using Android and if the server approves it. There's also no way to know whether you're using it or not. I feel that Silent Text is omitted from these lists too frequently, unfortunately, as it's one of the most secure texting apps currently on the market (I would know, I work for SC).
  - Tepix 11y ago
    Silent Text is $10/month or so that's why there is no mass adoption.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago

collyw 11y ago

I think a lot of it is timing and momentum. I just bought an Ubuntu phone only to discover there is no whatsapp on it. I am happy to use Telegram, but convincing friends is an uphill battle.

mahouse 11y ago

WhatsApp was first, that's all

jszymborski 11y ago

It 100% isn't about popularity, it's about usability. I tried to get my friends on Tox, but ultimately had to get them on Telegram because it was the only app that was truly 100% cross-platform.

aet 11y ago
Text messaging is cross platform
- jszymborski 11y ago
  It doesn't have any desktop platforms, which was a critical criteria, and it doesn't support group chat in the way we needed it.
e12e 11y ago
Yeah, because xmpp doesn't exist.
- darklajid 11y ago
  You got my upvote and I stated elsewhere in this thread that I'm currently upgrading my xmpp server (to the unreleased 0.10 version of prosody). But let's be honest: xmpp is still not there. To have something comparable to what these clients offer you need a good number of extensions, notably (ymmv) - Message carbons (i.e. a message reaches all online devices) - Stream management (because without it, people are going to consider xmpp broken. "It loses my messages") - MAM (for shared archives between clients/devices, the reason for me upgrading to an unstable server now) Given that one of these isn't even (widely) available so far, I'd say xmpp is in a bad position. I love the idea. But it's hard to imagine that it can gain traction right now, given that the 'only' thing it has to offer against all the other systems is federation. I care about that. But .. most don't.
  - e12e 11y ago
    You know, I've always been planning to set up my own xmpp server, so I haven't looked to hard at the public offerings. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any good list over public service providers -- one that includes things like does the server support server side archiving etc. I was hopeful when I saw that duckduckgo[ddg], fastmail[fm] and mailbox.org[m] had public chat services. But of the three, none support standard archiving [XEP-0136] and only fastmail supports a custom form of archiving (via special emails to your fastmail-account). The latter at least gives you an option to archive chats (for eg: search) -- but it appears there's a market for a good, public and full-featured xmpp/chat service. Most of the other public servers appear to a) be free-only -- not a business -- and b) focused on privacy. I find it a bit surprising that noone has tried launching a free+paid option -- say reserving some features for paying users (and charge maybe 1 USD/month?). Actually, I think duckduckgo.com would be happy to "host" a services free tier -- have a trial account mode, and point user that just want a free chat service to ddg. Ddg gets more registered users, more users of their services, and those that are willing to pay for some features (eg: server side archiving, server side notes... others?) can pay a small amount for the service. Only draw back would be no seamless transition from one to the other (change of username/domain). On the plus side, all my trial accounts can talk to each other without problem (via server side federation) -- it just works. [ddg] https://duck.co/blog/using-pidgin-with-xmpp-jabber https://duck.co/blog/using-pidgin-with-xmpp-jabber [fm] https://www.fastmail.com/help/clients/chat.html https://www.fastmail.com/help/clients/chat.html [m] https://mailbox.org/en/mailbox-org-launched-secure-instant-messaging-service/ https://mailbox.org/en/mailbox-org-launched-secure-instant-m... [l] https://list.jabber.at/ https://list.jabber.at/ [edit: And while mailbox.org has an interesting offering, like some kind of deal with yubikey -- they seem to have neglected their xmpp setup somewhat -- there are some issues with ssl certs. Pidigin can't seem to figure out that xmpp at fastmail is chat.messagingengine.com, nor that mailbox uses xmpp.mailbox.org. Both give additional certificate errors if not adjusted. I suppose fastmail hasn't set up srv-records/dns aliases for their vanity domains (I registered mm.st -- as it was the shortest). It'd be better if one could just type in <user>@mm.st and have everything work. The bug might be in Pidgin, but fm really needs to test things. Of the three, ddg was by far the easiest to get started with -- register right in the im client (which also generates an account that works for ddg); and go.]