WhatsApp provides no cryptographic management for group messages (arstechnica.com)
from themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world on 08 May 10:44
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43820254

#technology

threaded - newest

lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world on 08 May 11:34 next collapse

Duh, how else is Zuckerberg going to spy on you and sell your data back to you?

wischi@programming.dev on 08 May 15:53 collapse

It’s not called Meta data by accident 🤣

ouch@lemmy.world on 08 May 12:03 next collapse

If you want your group memberships to be known only by the group members, use Signal.

Bahnd@lemmy.world on 08 May 12:28 next collapse

Or Matrix (warning some assembly required)

new_guy@lemmy.world on 08 May 12:35 next collapse

WhatsApp isn’t the only messenger lacking cryptographic assurances for new group members. In 2022, a team that included some of the same researchers that analyzed WhatsApp found that Matrix—an open source and proprietary platform for chat and collaboration clients and servers—also provided no cryptographic means for ensuring only authorized members join a group. The Telegram messenger, meanwhile, offers no end-to-end encryption for group messages, making the app among the weakest for ensuring the confidentiality of group messages.

Bahnd@lemmy.world on 08 May 12:56 next collapse

That study was 3 years ago, features to create private (invite only) group chats are supported now.

coconut@programming.dev on 08 May 15:13 next collapse

an open source and proprietary platform

Are parts of matrix closed source?

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 09 May 02:54 collapse

How can matrix be insecure when it keeps locking me out of my own messages?

Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub on 08 May 14:32 collapse

I actually found xmpp to be a breeze compared to most Matrix solutions.

Synapse is bloated, dendrite sucks and conduit is in perpetual beta and the uwu forks die too fast.

XMPP:

  1. Install Snikket
  2. Reverse proxy
  3. Done
sykaster@feddit.nl on 08 May 12:32 next collapse

Just be sure to add only the people you want to be there. I’ve heard some people add others and it’s a bit messy

tias@discuss.tchncs.de on 08 May 13:01 collapse

How bad can it be, it’s not like we’re sharing state secrets

AbidanYre@lemmy.world on 08 May 15:34 collapse

We’re clean on OpSec

ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today on 08 May 15:01 next collapse

Or simplex.chat where there are no identifiers like phone numbers or any other identifier.

Security review was done by trail of bits.

coconut@programming.dev on 08 May 15:11 next collapse

Just use signal is not a valid statement in a world where vast majority of people aren’t using (and won’t use) it. I have been trying to get people to install it and have a total of 6 over several years. They only use it to communicate with me.

unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de on 08 May 15:15 collapse

Or P2P stuff like Briar :)

Sandbar_Trekker@lemmy.today on 08 May 13:48 collapse

Highlighting the main issue here (from the article):

“This means that it is possible for the WhatsApp server to add new members to a group,” Martin R. Albrecht, a researcher at King’s College in London, wrote in an email. “A correct client—like the official clients—will display this change but will not prevent it. Thus, any group chat that does not verify who has been added to the chat can potentially have their messages read.”