this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
394 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

60062 readers
3367 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That bad encryption was not cracked for now. The other one, that is used to process chats between 2 users in end to end mode, can't be enabled by default because it assumes no history is kept and no support for group chats.

Also, the arrest doesn't seem to be related to any of the things you mentioned. If anything it shows there are no ways for (certain) governments to affect the messenger, for now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That bad encryption was not cracked for now

There is no encryption by default if you haven't noticed. There only the pseudo-E2EE which has been proven to have critical weaknesses: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

can't be enabled by default

Yes it can, every proper E2EE messenger works like that. Signal, Threema, hell even WhatsApp uses E2EE by default.

no support for group chats

Signal has had group chats for many years now. WhatsApp uses the same encryption protocol and it also works just fine. Stop spreading misinformation, and use Signal if you want an actual secure, end-to-end encrypted, open and transparent messenger.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

has been proven to have critical weaknesses

Those are not critical, just some aspects being below some arbitrary expectational values. Also it seems there is still no proofs those vector attacks are being used at all.

Yes it can

They chose to target convenience over max security. Shoving strongest options to every user by default is agaiantt that. Reasons include: no history is being saved in this mode, and the desktop client doesn't support it.

Signal has had group chats for many years now

Just because it was implemented by others doesn't mean it's a way to go for everyone. From what I understand, e2e in group chats means that there is going to be a transaction of keys between all members of the chat on adding any new member, and/or on new message, which excessively increases the burden on clients and servers in case of big active chats.

You can ask telegram to implement that, but you can't blame it for keeping it behind some gates. Telegram got implemented e2e between 2 users before other messengers got it working in any form of group chats.

and use Signal

I'll think about it if they ditch electron.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also it seems there is still no proofs those vector attacks are being used at all.

Ah yes, definitely go with a messenger that has known vulnerabilities in its crappy encryption protocol, instead of one with an actual secure E2EE implementation.

no history is being saved in this mode

You can still make encrypted backups of encrypted messages, as can be seen on WhatsApp or Signal

and the desktop client doesn't support it

I don't know what you mean, both Signal and WhatsApp have managed to ship desktop clients with full E2EE support for years now. Only Telegram is too incompetent to do that.

Telegram got implemented e2e between 2 users before other messengers got it working in any form of group chats

Just stop lying. Telegram Secret Chats have been introduced in 2017, both Signal and WhatsApp have had E2EE (including for group chats!) for much longer. Signal has had (encrypted) group chats in 2014, back when it was called TextSecure: https://signal.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ And WhatsApp followed in 2016.

I'll think about it if they ditch electron.

Are you mad that Signal is focusing on privacy and security by improving their encryption protocol, instead of wasting time on some UI garbage? This shows your priorities really well. Keep using unencrypted Telegram, for the cool stickers and convenient cloud backup, and keep in mind that Telegram can read all of your messages, as well as hand them over to governments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Ah yes, definitely go with a messenger that has known vulnerabilities in its crappy encryption protocol, instead of one with an actual secure E2EE implementation.

Feel free to go any way you want. I'm not asking you to use telegram.

You can still make encrypted backups

Spend time for that, and keep them where? Maybe also need a feature to sync them between mobile and desktop?

Only Telegram is too incompetent to do that.

Not an implementation issue but a trust issue.

Just stop lying. Telegram Secret Chats have been introduced in 2017

https://telegram.org/evolution see October 2013.

both Signal and WhatsApp have had E2EE (including for group chats!) for much longer.

Whatsapp had them inctorudec in 2016.

Are you mad that Signal is focusing on privacy and security by improving their encryption protocol, instead of wasting time on some UI garbage?

I'm perfectly fine with that. More apps using electron means less chance for my pc to run garbage applications on a regular basis.

keep in mind that Telegram can read all of your messages, as well as hand them over to governments.

Keep in mind that any person in your secret chats can read your message, copy or screenshot it and hand it to anyone else. Those people know much better if you're doing anything sketchy (or something actually good but against their beliefs), than an app developer.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That bad encryption was not cracked for now.

There's no need if you control the server.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

End to end encryption was created specifically so that the server could not access the data.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

That's right, but it's not properly implemented in Telegram. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So how many people use E2EE with Telegram?

And their ToS forbids alternative clients doing that. Say, using Pidgin with PGP or OTR. Since Pidgin plugins for TG and these exist, it's not a limitation for me, but most people, again, don't use Pidgin to chat in TG.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Alternate clients are blocked from using that functionality because they may include ability to capture data somewhere, for example taking a screenshot of a protected chat.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I meant normal E2EE, not TG's "encrypted chats".

And it's not "that functionality", it's literally encoding messages into another layer over TG being forbidden.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There is no normal e2ee because there is no standard for implementation, especially when it comes to group chats with >2 people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are a few standards. OMEMO for group chats, though that, of course, requires support in the protocol itself, unlike OTR or PGP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't look like any of those are used by "major" messengers. Especially signal. This means "major" players prefer their own implementations, which removes the meaning from calling unused stuff a "standard".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

OMEMO is literally what's used by Signal, but standardized separately and adopted for XMPP. You didn't even bother to look it up apparently.

OTR is a time-honored standard. The issue is that it doesn't work with multiple logins.

PGP is an even more time-honored standard. The issue is that keys aren't temporary.

Also in cryptography the absolutely basic rule is to trust cryptographers, not "major players", so what you wrote is not as smart as you think. Actually quite ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cool. So that gives people authority to say "if it's used by signal and is standardized then it should be used by everyone"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, just that it's a real thing and whatever there is in TG is something bogus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Something not being standardized doesn't mean it's bogus.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you are arguing against your own imagination. Something not being vetted by someone competent does mean it's bogus in cryptography. Standardization is an unconnected subject. Most police forces over the world right now are using something standardized, but known to be utter crap.

I think you are falling for the "genius inventor" fallacy clueless normies love a lot.

TG's E2EE is simply garbage until known otherwise. There's no more depth to it. The reason it's not known to be broken is that it's not a high value target - most people don't use "secret chats" in TG.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you are falling for the “genius inventor” fallacy clueless normies love a lot.

People advertising signal everywhere look like those kind of normies to me too. Doesn't mean much.

The reason it’s not known to be broken is that it’s not a high value target - most people don’t use “secret chats” in TG.

Fair assumption. But it means you accept most people are stupid enough to not want such a feature or smart enough to not need it. Telegram user base is reported to be 900 million though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

So where am I advertising Signal?

But it means you accept most people are stupid enough to not want such a feature or smart enough to not need it. Telegram user base is reported to be 900 million though.

I didn't get this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Signal protocol is the de-facto standard for E2EE, and it works just fine even in large group chats. But you refuse to accept this reality. The Signal protocol is used by so many apps, obviously Signal itself, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Instagram direct messages, Google Allo (back when it existed), Google Messages (RCS), Skype, Wire and many others. MTProto is developed by Telegram, only used by telegram, not properly audited and full of flaws. No one should actually use it. And the fact that it doesn't support group chats is a design choice, because ultimately Telegram doesn't give a fuck about their users privacy or security. They have repeatedly worked with governments and worked against the interests of their users. Their funding is also pretty unclear and shady, and the entire company just appears scummy. Give me one single reason why anyone should use this trash over a proper E2EE messenger like Signal, Threema, SimpleX or Wire.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You switched the topic of the discussion. My original comment stands, as it corrects some part of your first comment.

I didn't suggest anyone to use telegram.

They have repeatedly worked with governments and worked against the interests of their users.

Even though those allegations are arguable, I know what you mean. And those cases don't involve compromising the actual encryption from what I understand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Stop pretending that Telegram cares about the security of their users, because they clearly aren't, as can be seen in their shitty encryption protocol, and the fact that by default all messages are stored on their servers in plain text

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So if an app doesn't support e2ee all data is being saved in plain text suddenly. You prefer calling telegram shitty because you don't care to actually learn what it uses. So it should be fair for me to call any other client shitty for other nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Uh you appear not to understand how encryption works? Either something is end-to-end encrypted, and the service provider doesn't have access to the encryption keys, and thus can't read the messages, or it is encrypted in transit, the keys are held by the provider and the messages are decrypted on the server. The latter is exactly what Telegram does, even though they falsely try to market it as something else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

the messages are decrypted on the server

What you said means they can be decrypted on the server. But there is no proof of that happening in the past. People got into problems not because someone uncovered their content in telegram, but because that content was effectively public from the beginning.