sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 2024 20:35
nextcollapse
No.
As a kind of a weird bonus, activating end-to-end encryption in Telegram is oddly difficult for non-expert users to actually do.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 20:56
nextcollapse
As a kind of a weird bonus, activating end-to-end encryption in Telegram is oddly difficult for non-expert users to actually do.
No, it’s not. It’s very easy. In the bottom right corner there is a pencil button to compose a new message and right there it asks which tpye of chat to start. Secret chat is the second topmost option after group chat. Really not hidden or complicated at all.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 2024 20:59
nextcollapse
It should be a setting to always use encrypted chat, and it should probably prompt you when you first login.
Better yet, don’t have an option to not have encrypted chats. I don’t see a reason to not have everything E2EE all the time.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:00
nextcollapse
It should be a setting to always use encrypted chat, and it should probably prompt you when you first login.
I don’t disagree but the claim that you quoted was that it’s complicated to initiate and as I explained it’s not. Also secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 2024 21:05
nextcollapse
If you have to enable it every time, it’s complicated enough that most people won’t bother. Maybe they’ll do it once or twice out of novelty, but it’s not going to become a habit.
I only consider something “encrypted” if it’s actually encrypted by default, or at least prompts to enable it permanently on first launch. Otherwise, it’s not an “encrypted” chat, it just has the option to have some chats encrypted.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:09
nextcollapse
If you have to enable it every time, it’s complicated
But you don’t. As I already explained: secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.
I have plenty of encrypted chats that I don’t have to enable every time I want to send one. I don’t understand where this misconception comes from.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 2024 21:16
collapse
Surely you talk to more than one or two people, no? If you have to manually check a box or something every time you start a new message with someone, people are going to stop doing it.
It’s not an encrypted chat app. It’s an unencrypted chat app that has an option for encrypted chats. Whether something is encrypted or not depends on how most people use it and what the defaults are.
Signal is an encrypted chat app. E2EE is the default and AFAIK only behavior. Telegram can be encrypted, but it’s not by default, and defaults matter.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:30
collapse
Surely you talk to more than one or two people, no? If you have to manually check a box or something every time you start a new message with someone, people are going to stop doing it.
Maybe you get acquainted to 100 new people every day, so your day is a constant chore of starting secret chats all the time. I don’t. I doubt regular people do. Just start the secret chat once and then pick it up later.
Signal is an encrypted chat app.
Except for the locally stored data which is not encrypted and Signal’s attitude is that device encryption is up to the user.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 2024 22:41
collapse
True, device encryption should be up to the user. Mine is encrypted, and most smartphones have encrypted storage these days. I actually have mine reboot after a period of inactivity, which removes the encryption keys from memory.
That said, they should have an option for app data encryption, but that’s hardly a requirement IMO, because I care far more about data being encrypted in transit than at rest on my devices. I can encrypt data at rest on my machines, I can’t encrypt data in-transit unless that’s baked in to the service.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 20:38
nextcollapse
That said, they should have an option for app data encryption, but that’s hardly a requirement IMO
So Telegram is not an encrypted messenger because there are types of messages that are not E2E encrypted but Signal is a encrypted messenger because encrypting local storage is optional. Got it.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 2024 20:51
collapse
Yes, because the “encrypted messenger” metric is about sending and receiving messages, not storing messages. On the order of things I care about, E2EE is much more important than local storage. I can do something about local storage, I can’t realistically do anything about E2EE.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 21:29
nextcollapse
Yes, because the “encrypted messenger” metric is about sending and receiving messages, not storing messages.
So whether or not the messages can be retrieved by criminals or law enforcement is not a metric. Got it!
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Aug 2024 03:02
collapse
Law enforcement would require a warrant, and criminals would need to break into my device first (highly unlikely without it being a targeted attack, and that’s not in my threat model at all).
And if they can break the encryption on my devices, they can likely break the encryption of the data at rest. Most people would probably use the same key for both anyway (biometrics or a PIN). If I need it to be more secure, I can create a special encrypted container for that service to store its data in.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 00:04
collapse
I can do something about local storage, I can’t realistically do anything about E2EE.
You can enable secret chat. Like press the button. But that’s probably too difficult compared to encrypting you devices.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Aug 2024 02:59
collapse
Sure, but what happens when my contacts forget to push it and send me confidential information? I can be the most careful person in the world and always press that button, but I cannot control what others do. That’s why it needs to be E2EE for everyone.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 00:02
collapse
most smartphones have encrypted storage these days
Encrypted from your girlfriend or yourself if you forgot your gesture, but not from Google/Apple/Government or anyone who actually wants your data.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Aug 2024 02:41
collapse
I’d like to see them try. I use GrapheneOS, and it reboots after a period of inactivity, so the decryption keys aren’t even loaded into memory unless I’ve used my phone recently. There are also constitutional protections so the government can’t take my data without my permission, or with a warrant (if they can break the encryption, that is).
Even your average smartphone w/o any special setup is encrypted by default, though a lot of people use pretty awful security (i.e. only biometrics, and police can unlock your device with your biometrics violating your right to not self-incriminate).
It would be nice if Signal stored my data encrypted, but my devices are already encrypted (phone, desktop, and laptop), are usually in my possession, and have extra layers of protection on top to prevent stealing my data. So I’m a lot more comfortable with “unencrypted” data at rest than the chance that a contact will send me an unencrypted, sensitive message. I can mitigate the former, I can’t do anything about the latter.
asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 22:08
collapse
annoying != complicated
scarabic@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 20:26
collapse
More steps required to perform something is very squarely within the definition of complicated, no matter how straightforward those steps are.
brrt@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 2024 07:51
collapse
Is it more complicated to achieve than in other e2ee messengers? Yes, thus saying it is complicated is justified.
30p87@feddit.org
on 25 Aug 2024 21:23
nextcollapse
But then you couldn’t get that juicy user and conversation data.
As I understand it, public groups use server side encryption (so not robust), but private chats use e2e encryption that is client side. (More robust)
Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
on 26 Aug 2024 06:55
nextcollapse
its some message for the users, having a secret chat kinda sounds bad, like doing something illegal and guilt trapping users into not using it
oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
on 26 Aug 2024 12:04
nextcollapse
They’ve implemented it in such a way that you only have access to an encrypted chat on a single device, so no syncing between devices. Syncing E2EE chats across devices is more difficult to pull off, but it’s definitely possible and other services do that by default.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:50
collapse
Syncing E2EE chats across devices is more difficult to pull off, but it’s definitely possible and other services do that by default.
That’s because if you are able to get your private key on another device, then Google, Apple or Microsoft, and that means anyone, also have access to your private key. And you don’t have e2ee, literally.
oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
on 27 Aug 2024 05:31
collapse
I would look into how Matrix handles this, for example. It involves unique device keys, device verification from a trusted device, and cross-signing. It’s not just some private key that’s spread around to random new devices where you lose track of.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:13
collapse
I don’t see a reason to not have everything E2EE all the time.
You probably didn’t ever meet non-IT person(or most of the IT people). To use e2ee means you need to keep your private key close and safe. 99.999% people can’t do that. So when they lost their key their conversation history is gone and it’s your fault not theirs.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Aug 2024 02:51
collapse
Signal does this by having your data be unencrypted at rest on your device, and I think that’s a reasonable tradeoff because it protects the most import part: data in transit. Or you can be like Matrix and require/strongly encourage setting up multiple clients so you always have a fallback (e.g. desktop and phone). There are reasonable technical solutions to the problem of making an E2EE chat system.
It’s three clicks. And it opens a separate chat from the existing one. It’s obscure enough that you could say the UX deprioritizes (which at best is not an actively malicious design choice) usage of end-to-end encryption.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:15
nextcollapse
It’s three clicks.
So it’s only three clicks, ergo easy.
And it opens a separate chat from the existing one.
I don’t see the problem. The secret one has the lock icon to clearly mark it. There’s no way one would accidentally pick the wrong chat. Delete the old, unencrypted one to be sure.
It’s obscure enough that you could say the UX deprioritizes (which at best is not an actively malicious design choice) usage of end-to-end encryption.
I agreed in another comment that there should be an “encrypted by default” option somewhere. I’m not claiming that it’s perfect but the claim in the blog that it’s super complicated is just not true. At least calls are P2P-encrypted by default.
If you’re talking to 30 people, it’s 90 clicks. It might be 3 clicks if you know where to look, but end of the day, even if you know where to find it, that’s still that many clicks times how many people you chat with. It’s not ideal. I wouldn’t say it’s complicated sure, but it’s not easy.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:23
collapse
If you’re talking to 30 people, it’s 90 clicks.
Uh, so? A “compose message” button is the approach many communication apps use, including e-mail. Don’t get me started how many clicks it is to GPG-encrypt e-mails…
It’s not ideal.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself that I agree on that part. You act as I would disagree. I don’t. It could be better but it’s also not a complicated nightmare as the blog author makes it out to be.
Right. But it’s also not exactly “easy” which is what you’re saying it is.
If easy was a sliding scale. Easy would be enabled by default. Hard would be making it obscure and hard to find. I would say it’s definitely closer to the harder to find side. But that’s just me. But 3 clicks, and having to switch chats and maybe delete the old one to avoid confusion, none of that is easy.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:37
collapse
Right. But it’s also not exactly “easy” which is what you’re saying it is.
I said it’s as easy as tapping the compose button and selecting secret chat. I nowhere claimed that it’s easier than that but it’s also not more complicated than that.
It’s 100% not just two clicks. You make it sound easier than it really is. But there’s no way for a new or infrequent user to know where it is unless they explore a bit or even knew to look for it. It’s hidden away behind a hamburger menu.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:50
collapse
You make it sound easier than it really is.
No, I gave a detailed tutorial how to initiate a secret chat and then explained that the procedure has to be done only once per contact. It’s exactly as easy or complicated as I explained. Not more, not less.
It’s hidden away behind a hamburger menu.
No, it’s not. Tap the pencil in the bottom right corner. That’s how I explained it and that’s how it’s done. Hamburger menu is an additional way but the compose button is the pencil in the bottom right corner.
Maybe it’s different on Android or Desktop/Web. On iOS it’s more than 2 clicks. And it’s tucked away. It would be surprising to me if the UI is that inconsistent across different platforms. But I can’t know for sure. So I will defer to the subject matter experts on Telegram.
On iOS, you tap the profile, then tap “more”, then tap “start secret chat”. So depending on whether navigating to the profile counts, it’s also three taps. I agree it could be more direct, and should be included in the “New message” menu accessible from the pencil-on-paper icon in the top right of the main screen. I’ve used telegram on many platforms and the UI is in fact quite different. The iOS and android apps are totally different with different features, as are the Mac app, cross platform desktop app, and various web apps.
Ah good point, gotta delete the old unencrypted chat too to avoid confusion. That’s definitely more than just 3 clicks.
PhreakyByNature@feddit.uk
on 25 Aug 2024 22:35
collapse
Yeah I mean if you started one. If you went in with a secret chat in the first place then it wouldn’t be an issue. And so it’s one extra click vs. starting a normal chat. I hope it hasn’t inconvenienced you more than it’s taken for all these replies.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 07:29
collapse
Anything harder than usual in the same application means it won’t usually be used.
And encryption is about collective immunity. So everything should be encrypted.
Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
on 26 Aug 2024 06:54
nextcollapse
Why would it even be an option to have a non-encryted chat if the app can do encrypted?
timewarp@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 17:28
collapse
Telegram isn’t made to be a full E2EE messenger. They have things like public channels which you can’t do with E2EE. What kind of idiots thought that Telegram was intended to be a fully E2EE messenger? People use it cause it is native and good for its purposes. It has secret chats if you need them at times. Why all the hate from the Signal CIA fanbois?
It sells you drugs and warns you from masks and vaccines
Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
on 27 Aug 2024 06:54
collapse
so make 1to1 conversation e2ee by default, what would be the downsite? Only one i can think of is they want to snoop in peoples convos.
im fine with public channels not being encrypted, thats fair.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 07:26
nextcollapse
Encryption is part of defense strategy, otherwise it’s like a steel door in a house with wall panels made of paper.
That strategy involves all communications being encrypted. Otherwise rubber hose cryptanalysis becomes practical.
curry@programming.dev
on 26 Aug 2024 11:49
nextcollapse
My man, have you ever worked in tech support? I admire your optimism.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 14:11
collapse
That’s my day job and I’m good at it. People understand when I explain three clicks.
curry@programming.dev
on 26 Aug 2024 17:48
nextcollapse
Fair enough. I’ve met both good and bad users.
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com
on 26 Aug 2024 18:46
collapse
People understand when I explain three clicks.
This is the problem. You have to explain it. Feel like talking to several million people to get them to use it?
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 20:33
collapse
Feel like talking to several million people to get them to use it?
I already made a one-line excessive tutorial in another comment. Feel free to link it.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:22
nextcollapse
Maybe when you share it, and explain, and be ready to support the millions of users, then we’ll have e2ee. But even then we probably won’t.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:31
collapse
Maybe when you share it
I already did.
and explain
I already did.
and be ready to support the millions of users
Of course. As I already explained, this sort of thing is my job. Millions of people signing support contracts with me: Awesome! I’ll be creating so many jobs. Happy to expand into enterprise communication by offering Teamgram hosting services.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:41
collapse
My comment was a sarcastic remark how hard it is to explain to millions of people how not to lose their data when they use e2ee.
If you are in the process of doing it - good job. But right now all out e2ee is for the enthusiasts only.
also their encryption is proprietary. you can’t actually know its good.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:30
collapse
That’s incorrect, their client is opensource, you can check their e2ee yourself.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee
on 26 Aug 2024 23:43
collapse
The encryption algorithm may be open source, but they rolled it themselves. It is proprietary encryption.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 23:50
collapse
Again, it’s not, go to their github, check the code of the client, compile it yourself, and make a reproducible build to check that the client they ship to your phone is the same. You are talking nonsense.
skeezix@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 23:52
nextcollapse
Todd is a known bullshitter
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee
on 27 Aug 2024 01:02
collapse
You’re not getting what I’m saying, because you don’t understand what “proprietary” means in this context.
Proprietary encryption ≠ Proprietary code.
You can roll your own shitty novel encryption algorithm and license it under GPL if you want, it’s still proprietary encryption in that Signal has its own unvetted encryption algorithm instead of using a trusted existing algorithm.
EDIT: How are people not understanding this?
Proprietary licensing is different from a proprietary way of doing things.
If you folks think that a GitHub repo and GPL license are all you need to vet an encryption algorithm, and you think that absolves an novel untested algo from being called “proprietary encryption” you’re gonna get burned one day because your trust was built on not understanding encryption.
Signal built their own encryption algorithm. That’s proprietary encryption. If you still think I’m wrong, pick up a dictionary, look up “proprietary” and “encryption”, and you might just have a chance at understanding that “proprietary” is an adjective that can apply to a lot of different words.
If Telegram is considered an encrypted messenger, then FB messenger should be too. Works exactly the same. I don’t know about you, but being the same level as FB messenger should speak volumes to whether Telegram is “encrypted” or not 🙄
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:04
nextcollapse
FB messenger should be too. Works exactly the same. 🙄
Yeah, the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better recognized than the one used in Telegram. But the lack of on-by-default or the need to drill in a few options before enabling secret chats… I mean it’s even named the same thing as Telegram.
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 2024 21:20
nextcollapse
the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better than the one used in Telegram.
MTProto 2 has not been cracked. MTProto 1 had a weakness and Telegram addressed it. That was many years ago. I’m not aware that MTProto 2 has ever been cracked in all these years. Telegram’s unwillingness to cooperate with governments is an additional security layer.
In my OP, I was merely referring to how FB Messenger and Telegram functions the same.
Speaking to the protocol used for encryption is a moot point… because even if MTProto 2 was better, it’s still not enabled by default in both messengers.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 07:39
collapse
MTProto 2 has not been cracked.
What’s important is that it hasn’t been confirmed good by actual normal cryptographers. It’s science, not school debates.
Telegram’s unwillingness to cooperate with governments is an additional security layer.
No person ever instructed in security would say something this childishly asinine!
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 20:36
collapse
What’s important is that it hasn’t been confirmed good by actual normal cryptographers.
Why not?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 10:15
collapse
I dunno. It’s just not.
Shows like “we have a reward to crack it, nobody’s done this, so we’re very cool” are not sufficient.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 23:47
collapse
It doesn’t matter what Facebook or WhatsApp say they use, their source code is closed, you can’t prove their words, meaning they don’t have e2ee. You can with Signal, you can with Telegram.
I suspect that’s because Telegram’s marketing and it’s users consistently try to place Telegram in the same categories as actually secure and encrypted messengers. Whereas I don’t see tech blogs claiming that FB messenger is secure.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:36
collapse
That’s ridiculous, Telegram client is opensource, Facebook is not. We know for a fact that Facebook shares their data with… well, anyone. The reason of the recent arrest of the Telegram CEO seems to be that he apparently doesn’t share anything.
I mean that is a fair point. But open source client only matters if people were using Telegram’s secret chats consistently. The closed source server is what’s most important when almost all communication happens plain text.
You can hide your phone number now with the release of usernames in Signal. Still need it for registration tho.
MehBlah@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 12:05
nextcollapse
Sure its is. Russia has the keys so they can snoop. Its encrypted though so just the kremlin can read it. Enjoy.
Its funny how what is out there can’t be comprehended by those who only see what they want to see. If he wasn’t in putins pocket he would have fell out a window by now. The rest is just a sad song and dance that the weak minded buy into.
timewarp@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 17:16
nextcollapse
The comment where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest Upends Kremlin Military Communications
tech.slashdot.org/…/telegram-ceo-pavel-durovs-arr…
I’m sure its nice with your head in the sand but it doesn’t make any of you right.
The idea that any of them are secure is a pipe dream.
iagomago@feddit.it
on 26 Aug 2024 17:49
nextcollapse
Durov has been blacklisted in Russia because he refused to cooperate with Putin’s government on several occasions.
Yet he is still alive. Misdirection nothing more nothing less.
Evotech@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 19:09
nextcollapse
Aha that’s why telegram is banned and blocked in Russia
nao@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 2024 19:42
nextcollapse
Wasn’t it unblocked again soon after?
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 23:12
collapse
It was “blocked” for 2 years, though there was a problem accessing it for only a month or so as Telegram developers implemented ways to avoid the ban. In 2 years the government officials decided that Telegram made enough effort to block extremist materials to remove themselves from the embarrassment. Now they probably think “why didn’t we trick Durov to visit us and just arrest him like France did”.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
on 27 Aug 2024 13:47
collapse
I am fairly convinced that it was either theater from the beginning, or some agreement was reached before it was “unblocked”. RKN doesn’t care about “embarrassment” or collateral damage if they want to do something.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 16:24
collapse
I don’t see any agreement possible just because Russia had literally nothing to offer to Telegram.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
on 27 Aug 2024 17:31
collapse
Telegram is VERY popular there. What it has to offer are users who would see ads and pay for the subscription.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 28 Aug 2024 00:16
collapse
But the ban was only somewhat effective for like a month, then Telegram found a way to avoid it. In two years no one even felt like it was banned. So what could Russia offer to Telegram? Literally nothing.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
on 28 Aug 2024 04:39
collapse
There was still some convenience added (for example, iirc the main website was blocked).
Its not and it wasn’t banned for very long unofficially.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 2024 19:33
collapse
What was your methodology to determine that?
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 2024 22:58
collapse
Racism.
ZealousSealion@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 2024 17:32
nextcollapse
It can be that.
But it is also a medium for public forums.
RangerJosie@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 01:14
nextcollapse
Oh here we go.
Manufacturing Consent to tear it down because victims around the world use it to get their voices out when everything else is shut down. People organizing against oppressive governments using it when nothing else is safe.
It can’t be allowed to exist. This is them social engineering your acceptance of their tyranny. Don’t bite the bait.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 2024 06:37
collapse
What is this nonsense? This is a technical post explaining why it’s not encrypted.
Plus there’s plenty of other services like matrix which can do the same thing better without enriching a billionaire
undrivendev@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 07:23
collapse
One of the most important rules of cybersecurity is: never roll your own encryption.
And what did the guys at Telegram do? Rolled their own encryption.
If you are into Telegram because you think it’s secure, think again.
There are much better alternatives out there, adopting proved industry standards. Signal or Matrix just to name a few.
viralJ@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 10:33
nextcollapse
What does ‘rolling encryption’ mean (if it’s possible to ELI15).
Nah, it’s I guess jargon at this point, but it really just means to make up your own crypto algos.
lichengeese@lemmy.zip
on 27 Aug 2024 11:04
collapse
‘Rolling your own…’ is a comparison to rolling your own cigarettes. That is, creating your own version from scratch instead of using something ready-made.
endofline@lemmy.ca
on 27 Aug 2024 10:43
nextcollapse
No, it’s not the rule itself. It’s rather an advice not to do as rolling own crypto is very tricky and complicated thing. You have to be very aware of many possible attacks, how they do work, to create own crypto properly
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
on 27 Aug 2024 13:44
collapse
More like “don’t roll your own crypto unless you’re ready to spend years getting it scrutinized and polished”.
nutsack@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 2024 11:23
nextcollapse
if the people you want to talk to are using telegram then you don’t have much of a choice
threaded - newest
No.
No, it’s not. It’s very easy. In the bottom right corner there is a pencil button to compose a new message and right there it asks which tpye of chat to start. Secret chat is the second topmost option after group chat. Really not hidden or complicated at all.
It should be a setting to always use encrypted chat, and it should probably prompt you when you first login.
Better yet, don’t have an option to not have encrypted chats. I don’t see a reason to not have everything E2EE all the time.
I don’t disagree but the claim that you quoted was that it’s complicated to initiate and as I explained it’s not. Also secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.
If you have to enable it every time, it’s complicated enough that most people won’t bother. Maybe they’ll do it once or twice out of novelty, but it’s not going to become a habit.
I only consider something “encrypted” if it’s actually encrypted by default, or at least prompts to enable it permanently on first launch. Otherwise, it’s not an “encrypted” chat, it just has the option to have some chats encrypted.
But you don’t. As I already explained: secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.
I have plenty of encrypted chats that I don’t have to enable every time I want to send one. I don’t understand where this misconception comes from.
Surely you talk to more than one or two people, no? If you have to manually check a box or something every time you start a new message with someone, people are going to stop doing it.
It’s not an encrypted chat app. It’s an unencrypted chat app that has an option for encrypted chats. Whether something is encrypted or not depends on how most people use it and what the defaults are.
Signal is an encrypted chat app. E2EE is the default and AFAIK only behavior. Telegram can be encrypted, but it’s not by default, and defaults matter.
Maybe you get acquainted to 100 new people every day, so your day is a constant chore of starting secret chats all the time. I don’t. I doubt regular people do. Just start the secret chat once and then pick it up later.
Except for the locally stored data which is not encrypted and Signal’s attitude is that device encryption is up to the user.
True, device encryption should be up to the user. Mine is encrypted, and most smartphones have encrypted storage these days. I actually have mine reboot after a period of inactivity, which removes the encryption keys from memory.
That said, they should have an option for app data encryption, but that’s hardly a requirement IMO, because I care far more about data being encrypted in transit than at rest on my devices. I can encrypt data at rest on my machines, I can’t encrypt data in-transit unless that’s baked in to the service.
So Telegram is not an encrypted messenger because there are types of messages that are not E2E encrypted but Signal is a encrypted messenger because encrypting local storage is optional. Got it.
Yes, because the “encrypted messenger” metric is about sending and receiving messages, not storing messages. On the order of things I care about, E2EE is much more important than local storage. I can do something about local storage, I can’t realistically do anything about E2EE.
So whether or not the messages can be retrieved by criminals or law enforcement is not a metric. Got it!
Law enforcement would require a warrant, and criminals would need to break into my device first (highly unlikely without it being a targeted attack, and that’s not in my threat model at all).
And if they can break the encryption on my devices, they can likely break the encryption of the data at rest. Most people would probably use the same key for both anyway (biometrics or a PIN). If I need it to be more secure, I can create a special encrypted container for that service to store its data in.
You can enable secret chat. Like press the button. But that’s probably too difficult compared to encrypting you devices.
Sure, but what happens when my contacts forget to push it and send me confidential information? I can be the most careful person in the world and always press that button, but I cannot control what others do. That’s why it needs to be E2EE for everyone.
Encrypted from your girlfriend or yourself if you forgot your gesture, but not from Google/Apple/Government or anyone who actually wants your data.
I’d like to see them try. I use GrapheneOS, and it reboots after a period of inactivity, so the decryption keys aren’t even loaded into memory unless I’ve used my phone recently. There are also constitutional protections so the government can’t take my data without my permission, or with a warrant (if they can break the encryption, that is).
Even your average smartphone w/o any special setup is encrypted by default, though a lot of people use pretty awful security (i.e. only biometrics, and police can unlock your device with your biometrics violating your right to not self-incriminate).
It would be nice if Signal stored my data encrypted, but my devices are already encrypted (phone, desktop, and laptop), are usually in my possession, and have extra layers of protection on top to prevent stealing my data. So I’m a lot more comfortable with “unencrypted” data at rest than the chance that a contact will send me an unencrypted, sensitive message. I can mitigate the former, I can’t do anything about the latter.
annoying != complicated
More steps required to perform something is very squarely within the definition of complicated, no matter how straightforward those steps are.
Is it more complicated to achieve than in other e2ee messengers? Yes, thus saying it is complicated is justified.
But then you couldn’t get that juicy user and conversation data.
As I understand it, public groups use server side encryption (so not robust), but private chats use e2e encryption that is client side. (More robust)
its some message for the users, having a secret chat kinda sounds bad, like doing something illegal and guilt trapping users into not using it
They’ve implemented it in such a way that you only have access to an encrypted chat on a single device, so no syncing between devices. Syncing E2EE chats across devices is more difficult to pull off, but it’s definitely possible and other services do that by default.
That’s because if you are able to get your private key on another device, then Google, Apple or Microsoft, and that means anyone, also have access to your private key. And you don’t have e2ee, literally.
I would look into how Matrix handles this, for example. It involves unique device keys, device verification from a trusted device, and cross-signing. It’s not just some private key that’s spread around to random new devices where you lose track of.
You probably didn’t ever meet non-IT person(or most of the IT people). To use e2ee means you need to keep your private key close and safe. 99.999% people can’t do that. So when they lost their key their conversation history is gone and it’s your fault not theirs.
Signal does this by having your data be unencrypted at rest on your device, and I think that’s a reasonable tradeoff because it protects the most import part: data in transit. Or you can be like Matrix and require/strongly encourage setting up multiple clients so you always have a fallback (e.g. desktop and phone). There are reasonable technical solutions to the problem of making an E2EE chat system.
It’s three clicks. And it opens a separate chat from the existing one. It’s obscure enough that you could say the UX deprioritizes (which at best is not an actively malicious design choice) usage of end-to-end encryption.
So it’s only three clicks, ergo easy.
I don’t see the problem. The secret one has the lock icon to clearly mark it. There’s no way one would accidentally pick the wrong chat. Delete the old, unencrypted one to be sure.
I agreed in another comment that there should be an “encrypted by default” option somewhere. I’m not claiming that it’s perfect but the claim in the blog that it’s super complicated is just not true. At least calls are P2P-encrypted by default.
If you’re talking to 30 people, it’s 90 clicks. It might be 3 clicks if you know where to look, but end of the day, even if you know where to find it, that’s still that many clicks times how many people you chat with. It’s not ideal. I wouldn’t say it’s complicated sure, but it’s not easy.
Uh, so? A “compose message” button is the approach many communication apps use, including e-mail. Don’t get me started how many clicks it is to GPG-encrypt e-mails…
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself that I agree on that part. You act as I would disagree. I don’t. It could be better but it’s also not a complicated nightmare as the blog author makes it out to be.
Right. But it’s also not exactly “easy” which is what you’re saying it is.
If easy was a sliding scale. Easy would be enabled by default. Hard would be making it obscure and hard to find. I would say it’s definitely closer to the harder to find side. But that’s just me. But 3 clicks, and having to switch chats and maybe delete the old one to avoid confusion, none of that is easy.
I said it’s as easy as tapping the compose button and selecting secret chat. I nowhere claimed that it’s easier than that but it’s also not more complicated than that.
It’s 100% not just two clicks. You make it sound easier than it really is. But there’s no way for a new or infrequent user to know where it is unless they explore a bit or even knew to look for it. It’s hidden away behind a hamburger menu.
No, I gave a detailed tutorial how to initiate a secret chat and then explained that the procedure has to be done only once per contact. It’s exactly as easy or complicated as I explained. Not more, not less.
No, it’s not. Tap the pencil in the bottom right corner. That’s how I explained it and that’s how it’s done. Hamburger menu is an additional way but the compose button is the pencil in the bottom right corner.
Maybe it’s different on Android or Desktop/Web. On iOS it’s more than 2 clicks. And it’s tucked away. It would be surprising to me if the UI is that inconsistent across different platforms. But I can’t know for sure. So I will defer to the subject matter experts on Telegram.
On iOS, you tap the profile, then tap “more”, then tap “start secret chat”. So depending on whether navigating to the profile counts, it’s also three taps. I agree it could be more direct, and should be included in the “New message” menu accessible from the pencil-on-paper icon in the top right of the main screen. I’ve used telegram on many platforms and the UI is in fact quite different. The iOS and android apps are totally different with different features, as are the Mac app, cross platform desktop app, and various web apps.
Ah good point, gotta delete the old unencrypted chat too to avoid confusion. That’s definitely more than just 3 clicks.
Yeah I mean if you started one. If you went in with a secret chat in the first place then it wouldn’t be an issue. And so it’s one extra click vs. starting a normal chat. I hope it hasn’t inconvenienced you more than it’s taken for all these replies.
Anything harder than usual in the same application means it won’t usually be used.
And encryption is about collective immunity. So everything should be encrypted.
Why would it even be an option to have a non-encryted chat if the app can do encrypted?
Telegram isn’t made to be a full E2EE messenger. They have things like public channels which you can’t do with E2EE. What kind of idiots thought that Telegram was intended to be a fully E2EE messenger? People use it cause it is native and good for its purposes. It has secret chats if you need them at times. Why all the hate from the Signal CIA fanbois?
Owner is Russia
The author makes the point that Telegram advertises itself as secure, but isn’t except a hidden out of the way option that almost nobody will use.
The truth of the matter is Telegram has the full plaintext content of almost every message posted on that site.
Yummy data for telegram AI
It sells you drugs and warns you from masks and vaccines
so make 1to1 conversation e2ee by default, what would be the downsite? Only one i can think of is they want to snoop in peoples convos.
im fine with public channels not being encrypted, thats fair.
Encryption is part of defense strategy, otherwise it’s like a steel door in a house with wall panels made of paper.
That strategy involves all communications being encrypted. Otherwise rubber hose cryptanalysis becomes practical.
My man, have you ever worked in tech support? I admire your optimism.
That’s my day job and I’m good at it. People understand when I explain three clicks.
Fair enough. I’ve met both good and bad users.
This is the problem. You have to explain it. Feel like talking to several million people to get them to use it?
I already made a one-line excessive tutorial in another comment. Feel free to link it.
Maybe when you share it, and explain, and be ready to support the millions of users, then we’ll have e2ee. But even then we probably won’t.
I already did.
I already did.
Of course. As I already explained, this sort of thing is my job. Millions of people signing support contracts with me: Awesome! I’ll be creating so many jobs. Happy to expand into enterprise communication by offering Teamgram hosting services.
My comment was a sarcastic remark how hard it is to explain to millions of people how not to lose their data when they use e2ee.
If you are in the process of doing it - good job. But right now all out e2ee is for the enthusiasts only.
You should put it on tiktok and yt shorts, lol
It is not easy, as it’s not even possible on desktop.
also their encryption is proprietary. you can’t actually know its good.
That’s incorrect, their client is opensource, you can check their e2ee yourself.
The encryption algorithm may be open source, but they rolled it themselves. It is proprietary encryption.
Again, it’s not, go to their github, check the code of the client, compile it yourself, and make a reproducible build to check that the client they ship to your phone is the same. You are talking nonsense.
Todd is a known bullshitter
You’re not getting what I’m saying, because you don’t understand what “proprietary” means in this context.
Proprietary encryption ≠ Proprietary code.
You can roll your own shitty novel encryption algorithm and license it under GPL if you want, it’s still proprietary encryption in that Signal has its own unvetted encryption algorithm instead of using a trusted existing algorithm.
EDIT: How are people not understanding this?
Proprietary licensing is different from a proprietary way of doing things.
If you folks think that a GitHub repo and GPL license are all you need to vet an encryption algorithm, and you think that absolves an novel untested algo from being called “proprietary encryption” you’re gonna get burned one day because your trust was built on not understanding encryption.
Signal built their own encryption algorithm. That’s proprietary encryption. If you still think I’m wrong, pick up a dictionary, look up “proprietary” and “encryption”, and you might just have a chance at understanding that “proprietary” is an adjective that can apply to a lot of different words.
If Telegram is considered an encrypted messenger, then FB messenger should be too. Works exactly the same. I don’t know about you, but being the same level as FB messenger should speak volumes to whether Telegram is “encrypted” or not 🙄
Facebook licensed Signal’s encryption: signal.org/blog/facebook-messenger/
Yeah, the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better recognized than the one used in Telegram. But the lack of on-by-default or the need to drill in a few options before enabling secret chats… I mean it’s even named the same thing as Telegram.
MTProto 2 has not been cracked. MTProto 1 had a weakness and Telegram addressed it. That was many years ago. I’m not aware that MTProto 2 has ever been cracked in all these years. Telegram’s unwillingness to cooperate with governments is an additional security layer.
In my OP, I was merely referring to how FB Messenger and Telegram functions the same.
Speaking to the protocol used for encryption is a moot point… because even if MTProto 2 was better, it’s still not enabled by default in both messengers.
What’s important is that it hasn’t been confirmed good by actual normal cryptographers. It’s science, not school debates.
No person ever instructed in security would say something this childishly asinine!
Why not?
I dunno. It’s just not.
Shows like “we have a reward to crack it, nobody’s done this, so we’re very cool” are not sufficient.
It doesn’t matter what Facebook or WhatsApp say they use, their source code is closed, you can’t prove their words, meaning they don’t have e2ee. You can with Signal, you can with Telegram.
Telegram needs to enable e2ee by default, cause the way it is now, you may as well not have it.
Then is not than
Good catch 🫡
But strangely only one is being prosecuted.
I suspect that’s because Telegram’s marketing and it’s users consistently try to place Telegram in the same categories as actually secure and encrypted messengers. Whereas I don’t see tech blogs claiming that FB messenger is secure.
That’s ridiculous, Telegram client is opensource, Facebook is not. We know for a fact that Facebook shares their data with… well, anyone. The reason of the recent arrest of the Telegram CEO seems to be that he apparently doesn’t share anything.
I mean that is a fair point. But open source client only matters if people were using Telegram’s secret chats consistently. The closed source server is what’s most important when almost all communication happens plain text.
When you can’t use secret chat at ALL on desktop, fuck no it isn’t.
Assuming end-to-end encryption is what’s meant in the question.
You can with Pidgin and purple-tdlib plugin for Telegram.
But then I’d ask the other person to use the same thing, and we’d both use OTR for encryption, not TG’s bogus E2EE.
wow I haven’t used Pidgin in like a decade
That’s a step backwards from Whatsapp lol
It’s still shit tho. Signal is better.
As is Sessions
Somehow it has public groups and requires your phone number. Not really sure how to find the groups though.
But unlike Signal, nobody can see your number
You can hide your phone number now with the release of usernames in Signal. Still need it for registration tho.
Sure its is. Russia has the keys so they can snoop. Its encrypted though so just the kremlin can read it. Enjoy.
Its funny how what is out there can’t be comprehended by those who only see what they want to see. If he wasn’t in putins pocket he would have fell out a window by now. The rest is just a sad song and dance that the weak minded buy into.
The comment where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest Upends Kremlin Military Communications tech.slashdot.org/…/telegram-ceo-pavel-durovs-arr… I’m sure its nice with your head in the sand but it doesn’t make any of you right.
The idea that any of them are secure is a pipe dream.
Durov has been blacklisted in Russia because he refused to cooperate with Putin’s government on several occasions.
Yet he is still alive. Misdirection nothing more nothing less.
Aha that’s why telegram is banned and blocked in Russia
Wasn’t it unblocked again soon after?
It was “blocked” for 2 years, though there was a problem accessing it for only a month or so as Telegram developers implemented ways to avoid the ban. In 2 years the government officials decided that Telegram made enough effort to block extremist materials to remove themselves from the embarrassment. Now they probably think “why didn’t we trick Durov to visit us and just arrest him like France did”.
I am fairly convinced that it was either theater from the beginning, or some agreement was reached before it was “unblocked”. RKN doesn’t care about “embarrassment” or collateral damage if they want to do something.
I don’t see any agreement possible just because Russia had literally nothing to offer to Telegram.
Telegram is VERY popular there. What it has to offer are users who would see ads and pay for the subscription.
But the ban was only somewhat effective for like a month, then Telegram found a way to avoid it. In two years no one even felt like it was banned. So what could Russia offer to Telegram? Literally nothing.
There was still some convenience added (for example, iirc the main website was blocked).
Its not and it wasn’t banned for very long unofficially.
What was your methodology to determine that?
Racism.
It can be that. But it is also a medium for public forums.
Oh here we go.
Manufacturing Consent to tear it down because victims around the world use it to get their voices out when everything else is shut down. People organizing against oppressive governments using it when nothing else is safe.
It can’t be allowed to exist. This is them social engineering your acceptance of their tyranny. Don’t bite the bait.
What is this nonsense? This is a technical post explaining why it’s not encrypted.
Plus there’s plenty of other services like matrix which can do the same thing better without enriching a billionaire
One of the most important rules of cybersecurity is: never roll your own encryption.
And what did the guys at Telegram do? Rolled their own encryption.
If you are into Telegram because you think it’s secure, think again. There are much better alternatives out there, adopting proved industry standards. Signal or Matrix just to name a few.
What does ‘rolling encryption’ mean (if it’s possible to ELI15).
OP probably meant “to roll out”, meaning: “to deploy”.
Nah, it’s I guess jargon at this point, but it really just means to make up your own crypto algos.
‘Rolling your own…’ is a comparison to rolling your own cigarettes. That is, creating your own version from scratch instead of using something ready-made.
No, it’s not the rule itself. It’s rather an advice not to do as rolling own crypto is very tricky and complicated thing. You have to be very aware of many possible attacks, how they do work, to create own crypto properly
More like “don’t roll your own crypto unless you’re ready to spend years getting it scrutinized and polished”.
if the people you want to talk to are using telegram then you don’t have much of a choice
Maybe tell them you are using signal and that they don’t have a choice but to use it
that doesn’t work with clients. or vendors. or any other type of business partner, really. maybe your staff and your grandma and steven?
It would if everyone already had it installed.
Generally a good rule, however Signal did develop their own encryption. It was so good it became the industry standard.