Privacy

31800 readers

388 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

130

Is Telegram really an encrypted messaging app? (blog.cryptographyengineering.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Blog post by crypto professor Matthew Green, discussing what Telegram does (I wasn't familiar with it) and criticizing its cryptography. He says Telegram by default is not end-to-end encrypted. It does have an end-to-end "secret chat" feature, but it's a nuisance to activate and only works for two-person chats (not groups) where both people are online when the chat starts.

It still isn't clear to me why Telegram's founder was arrested. Green expresses some concern over that but doesn't give any details that weren't in the headlines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pupbiru 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

telegram put up bounties relating to specific properties of their encryption, yes but there’s more to private messaging than just encryption… for example afaik it’s trivial to do things like replay attacks

their encryption may not be flawed, but they failed to design an algorithm that protects against the wide array of modern attacks, as they are mathematicians; not security experts. they understood the maths, but not the wider scope of implementation

a good example of these is linked down thread about MLS

Security properties of MLS include message confidentiality, message integrity and authentication, membership authentication, asynchronicity, forward secrecy, post-compromise security, and scalability.

the telegram bounties afaik only cover 1 security property

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But can you provide an example of an actual flaw being demonstrated by anybody with or without a bounty?

[–] pupbiru 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

i neither have the time nor inclination to research to that degree - i’m merely saying that the bounties prove very little, and change nothing about how people should treat non-standard protocols and algorithms. in fact, the lack of substance is proof that they don’t fully understand the scope of what’s required in the field of security

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

And I'm saying that despite people constantly throwing shade on the protocol, nobody has actually showed any flaws in it over many years. The whole dogma that non-standard protocols and algorithms should be shunned out of principle is just that. Meanwhile, plenty of exploits have been found in standard protocols. Not only that there are known cases where US security agencies introduced exploits into popular protocols. https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to