Telegram is known as a privacy-focused secure messaging app because it markets itself that way. However, it is often criticized by security experts, privacy advocates, and people with common sense who can understand why its claims about being privacy-friendly don't make sense. In this brief article, I'll show you all
It’s a messaging app, it’s useless if there is nobody to message. I dont have any friends using signal yet.
Also it doesnt work on my phone (Ubuntu touch). There used to be a community app but it’s not currently working.
I sincerely wish them success, but it’s hard to have faith that a US-based company will actually protect your privacy. Not that Telegram does either. I dont know what information they do even collect.
You don’t have to, though? 1) The E2EE Signal protocol is well-audited to be robust. 2) The app itself is FOSS, and there are a lot of eyes on it. 3) The server code is FOSS. Even if they’re lying about what code they use, it doesn’t matter because it’s E2EE. 4) If you think Signal might be bait-and-switching by building from different source code, you’d be provably wrong. They have reproducible builds, so were they to actually try this, it would be like sending up a flare to the entire security community. 5) Literally every single time OWS has been subpoenaed, the only information they’ve been able to provide is extremely basic metadata like server connection times.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m sorry. There’s functionally less “trust” here than any messaging application on the planet. The network effect remark is at least valid and can be debated (although I personally have zero friends who use Telegram and at least several who use Signal). This one is just so, so wrong that it’s not even up for debate.
Thanks for the elaboration. I’m not familiar with how Signal works.
Educating yourself on topic is a good idea BEFORE you plan on arguing about it online.
Not just that, but also it’s small in description. If you read their papers, they are very easy to understand. I suppose that’s intentional, clarity and simplicity are among the main criteria of anything intended for security.
“A lot of eyes” is overvalued. There are a lot of eyes on every nation-state in history too, you tell me how that works.
It doesn’t matter because of protocol design. They’ve solved very complex problems and have not stopped doing that. E2EE is the wrong buzzword, zero-knowledge is the right one. No, I’m not remotely qualified enough to explain what that is.
Still supply chain attack on clients is the most probable, but not much they can do with it. It’s similar to fearing trojans on user devices. Yes, 3-letter agencies and such most likely will do that, not bother with pressuring Signal developers. And no, there’s not much you can do to defend against a targeted attack, if it’s targeted, then you’ve already bothered people you shouldn’t have.
Well, it’s not as if one could avoid that. It all lies in the area of smart contracts and distributed computing then, and see point 1, right now Signal’s protocol can be in general strokes understood by someone like me. If they make something like that, it won’t be. Everything is a compromise.
I think Wire and maybe Session use slightly modified Signal protocol. But Signal itself is the thing, made by people with clear vision of the whole architecture, model, which is not limited to protocols, but also to sociology, human psychology, politics. And they’ve explained literally every architectural decision of theirs in articles.