This is an article written by telegram's founder and CEO Pavel Durov in 2019 on "Why whatsapp will never be secure". Your thoughts?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 86 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

Sure, fuck WhatsApp, but Telegram isn't even end-to-end encrypted most of the time. Their group chats never are, and their "secret chat" encryption for non-group chats must be explicitly enabled and hardly ever is because it disables some features. And when it is encrypted, it's with some dubious nonstandard cryptography.

It's also pseudo open source; they do publish source code once in a while but it never corresponds to the binaries that nearly everyone actually uses.

And the audacity to talk about metadata when Telegram accounts still require a phone number today (as they did five years ago when this post was written) is just... 🤯

State-sponsored exploits against WhatsApp might be more common than against Telegram, or at least we hear about them more, but it's not because the app is more vulnerable: it's because governments don't need to compromise the endpoint to read your Telegram messages: they can just add a new device to your account with an SMS and see everything.

(╯° °)╯︵ ┻━┻

Anything claiming to prioritize privacy yet asking for your phone number (Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, ...) is a farce.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago*

    Anything claiming to prioritize privacy yet asking for your phone number (Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, ...) is a farce.

    Yeah, sure. The privacy farce signal.

    I'm getting tired of this stupid hardline-take.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    And the audacity to talk about metadata when Telegram accounts still require a phone number today (as they did five years ago when this post was written) is just… 🤯

    Not only that, but I believe that they actively try to prevent VoIP numbers from being used to create accounts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't agree with everything but that last point of yours. Requiring your phone number only means your are not anonymous. There is no need to be anonymous to communicate privately. In fact, it can be counterproductive, since your are much more vulnerable to social engineering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 54 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    What a load of hipocrisy. The dude uses unauthenticated DH for his apps "secret chats", which a bored student with a laptop can MITM in seconds. Other chats use just TLS, meaning they get to read EVERYTHING.

    Use Signal, people.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    "Here's what someone who has never created a private messenger thinks about Whatsapp's privacy."

    Why would anyone care about what he has to say? 💀

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I'm confused regarding why you don't consider telegram a private messenger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's been a while since I looked into it, and things might have changed since then, but some stuff off the top of my head:

    • Messages are stored on the server, not on the device
    • end-to-end encryption not enabled by default
    • uses proprietary encryption, making security audits difficult

    Apart from that it's somewhat politically questionable, based in Dubai (I think), with dubious financial backing and Russian developers. Because it's closed source and the encryption is proprietary, there's no way of knowing how much info it leaks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Messages are stored on the server, not on the device

    Yes, pretty much necessary to provide multidevice support

    end-to-end encryption not enabled by default

    True that and telegram sucks big here, but I donth think e2ee can be enabled in a feasible way for multiple devices.

    uses proprietary encryption, making security audits difficult

    The MTProto isnt open source but its fully documented, there have been security audits on it.

    dubious financial backing

    No. Pavel Durov have always said since starting he paid for telegram's servers from his pocket, in recent years telegram has started monetisation programs to cover its costs.

    Russian developers

    The founders were born in Russia, but they now have dual citizenship of UAE and France. If you are talking about politically questionable, even signal have been accused of having backdoors for CIA.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    Clicking the link gives me the following warning:

    The site ahead may contain harmful programs

    Firefox blocked this page because it might try to trick you into installing programs that harm your browsing experience (for example, by changing your homepage or showing extra ads on sites you visit).

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    weird, works for me in firefox with all privacy features enabled, can you please try this link: https://telegra.ph/Why-WhatsApp-Will-Never-Be-Secure-05-15

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Your original link is blocked at DNS level on my 'Threat intelligence' blocklist.

    And that link is blocked at DNS level by 'Toxic' and 'Stop Forum Spam' filters.

    So it's blocked before the browser can even connect for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    WhatsApp's e2e encryption is based on the Signal protocol and active by default. Telegram's is opt-in. So much for Telegram's superior privacy...

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (22 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    He writes as if signal's devs would have to be quiet about whatsapps encryption

    E.g.

    Last year, the founders of WhatsApp left the company due to concerns over users’ privacy [16]. They are surely tied by either gag orders or NDAs, so are unable to discuss backdoors publicly without risking their fortunes and freedom. They were able to admit, however, that "they sold their users' privacy" [17].

    Yet signal published multiple posts about how secure whatsapp is. I don't buy it but it's not like they would be quiet. (They=moxie) https://signal.org/blog/there-is-no-whatsapp-backdoor/ https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I believe Moxie helped them integrate Signal protocol into WA successfully while preserving user integrity and privacy.

    However, it wouldnt be out of the realm for them to make modifications to their custom protocol that Moxie helped design, and turn it into a privacy nightmare after the fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    WhatsApp will be never private and secure, while Telegram will be never private. 😁

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    No one said the opposite, while on WhatsApp they had several vulnerabilities that allowed attackers to get the user phone control.

    An example: https://thehackernews.com/2021/04/new-whatsapp-bug-couldve-let-attackers.html

    But there were many more vulnerabilities or "features" that WhatsApp allowed attackers or governments to get into user data. While I haven't read anything about against Telegram security.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I'm not qualified enough to argue, but I wouldn't trust Durov. He's a competitor, after all. And he has a history of questionable decisions.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is a very good reminder why one should worry about the new messaging standard for interoperability.

    WhatsApp users resilient enough not to fall for constant popups telling them to back up their chats can still be traced by a number of other tricks – from accessing their contacts’ backups to invisible encryption key changes [13]. The metadata generated by WhatsApp users – logs describing who chats with whom and when – is leaked to all kinds of agencies in large volumes by WhatsApp’s parent company [14].

    It even might result in me thinking that we should have to ban facebook from entering the fediverse because people are lazy and don't switch to the real fediverse if they can see your posts and contact you directly.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Guys, please stop using telegram if you care for your security and privacy

    Telegram is not fully open source, sometimes they release the source, but the hashes of the builds don't even match (so it's a different source code) 🚩

    Zero transparency about data handling, even when they get caught they don't tell details 🚩 (Telegram in the recent years has got really shady reputation)

    Very often ways they implement security is weird: non open source app, non open source server, leaking APIs, use of phone numbers, at some point they started asking for an email, non encrypted chats by default, never encrypted group chats.. it can continue forever 🚩

    Non-standard encryption is a real red flag, non-open-source 🚩

    I know some people that work/worked for the police, and they can read all the messages easy peasy, i was trying to tell to the people many years ago, but everyone was so amused by the stickers. Now you can just read stories of the journalists and activists, and how they got imprisoned with the use telegram 👁️‍🗨️💀

    PLEASE, STOP USING TELEGRAM IF YOU CARE FOR YOUR PRIVACY OR SECURITY

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 3 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Both WhatsApp and Telegram suck. Just like any other messenger that's either proprietary or not end to end encrypted. Signal is clearly the best choice.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Signal is not the best choice, it's just a somewhat aceptable middle ground. I prefer something that doesn't require a phone number and something you can self-host, like XMPP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Good luck convincing normies to use some obscure messaging protocol. It's difficult with Signal, even harder with Matrix, basically impossible with XMPP. 99.99999% have never in their life heard about XMPP. Also most mobile clients absolutely suck. You also can't get proper push notifications without completely ruining your battery life. What a great choice!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›