Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

sneak

PSA: Telegram is dangerous snake oil—bad crypto.

Don't use it, don't let friends use it.

https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81899003583181619...

https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/819181464369577984

https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81919238137120358...

View on HN

I was just about to post something similar. I'm actually surprised to see a positive post of Telegram on HN. For the love of crypto, please stick to Signal protocol-based messaging applications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol

Edit: add link http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypta...

Are there any Signal-based messaging applications that work on the desktop without having to tether an Android or IOS smartphone to it, and without having to use a phone number as identifier?

This. People say Telegram is bad even though it's no worse than any other popular product, or has a different set of advantages/disadvantages both security- and privacy-wise.

From a security and privacy perspective, Telegram is substantially worse than its competitors, so this is a little rhetorical sleight of hand you've just pulled here.

If you want to argue that Telegram and Signal are comparable because Telegram has better UX and Signal better security and some people prefer UX to security, that's fine (I could not disagree more strongly, but at least it's a coherent argument). But don't pretend the thread isn't about security to make people believe that there's controversy about whether Signal is more secure. There is no controversy: Signal won the Levchin prize this year for the Signal Protocol and sets the standard for secure chat, and Telegram... well, let's just suffice it to say that it does not meet that standard.

OMEMO [1] is based on Axolotl (aka Signal's protocol) and you can use it with Gajim on the desktop. Still very experimental though :(

[1] https://conversations.im/omemo/

Facebook Messenger.

It's rather a web app than a desktop application, isn't it?

It's not a desktop app, but the original requirement never stated that.

There's a desktop app for Windows. There's also a web app at https://messenger.com. You can disable your Facebook account and still use Messenger

Wait, are you saying messenger is secure and private? As if Facebook would want to give up a source of data for marketing?

It's opt-in end-to-end encrypted with Signal Protocol now, so Facebook does in fact give up that data. Having said that, you should prefer protocols that aren't opt-in for security, which is what Signal buys you.

Is Facebook Messenger Signal-based (i.e. end-to-end encrypted with a Signal/Axolotl double ratchet) as GP requested?

I somehow doubt it.

EDIT: Oh, I was mistaken, apparently there is an option now. From Wikipedia:

On October 4, 2016, Facebook deployed end-to-end encryption as an optional feature for Facebook Messenger users. It is available in an optional mode called "Secret Conversations" and uses the Signal Protocol.

Wire? (Haven't tried it personally, and I don't think there is an independent review of their implementation of the crypto)

Riot.im uses the OLM encryption library (that is also used by XMPP OMEMO, see the OMEMO XEP). The OLM protocol is (I gather) very similar to the Signal protocol.

Riot is based on Matrix which is a decentralized protocol (you're not tied to one company), and it doesn't need your phone number.

Wire.

* open source, code on github

* e2e encryption (apparently derivative of Signal's Axolotl double ratchet)

* chat/voice/video, and group chats (all encrypted always)

* based in Switzerland, coding out of Berlin

* clients for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, Linux, Web

* can sign up with phone number or email (or username? Not sure - I think you can find contacts via username, not sure you can sign up without email)

* reasonably responsive on twitter

* yada yada yada

I like it, but what about all the tracking?

Things like this: https://github.com/wireapp/wire-desktop/issues/80

Then there is the fact that the client acts as a browser that fetches information from the web automatically without blocking trackers itself. This is leaking metadata and actual data.

For the love of crypto, I would like to see Signal and WhatsApp make proper desktop applications for all major platforms including Linux. Until they do so, Telegram will serve as an excellent competitor to remind them that good cryptography is not enough.

The Signal desktop-app stores all messages unencrypted on the filesystem: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/1017

Sure, but telegram doesn't even have a secret chat feature on desktop client.

I can't believe there still isn't a single usable e2e mobile + desktop chat client that won't drain your cell phone battery super quickly.

> For the love of crypto,

The problem is that most people value convenience and speed over security and privacy. Telegram provides a very good trade off, much better than some other apps. If Signal were to be developed at the pace Telegram is, I would use it all the time, but it's not. For my use and likes, both Telegram and Wire are very good fits.

> PSA: Telegram is dangerous snake oil

1. They don't claim to do end to end crypto unless you use the secret chats

2. The secret chats still aren't broken. Since 2013, I'd think at least one "crypto expert" (which all said a custom protocol was a bad idea) would have taken the effort to prove it by now.

3. Whatsapp claims to have better encryption, and they probably do, but it's 1) a lot less convenient and 2) unverifiable.

4. Telegram is open source. You can layer your own encryption on top of it if you care, and the clients' implementation is fully verifiable.

PSA: Whatsapp is dangerous snake oil--hidden source code and owned by a company with a terrible track record in terms of privacy.

4. Open source, you say? Technically, yes. But in fact they love to abandon github repos while still releasing new versions. Take a look at iOS sources: https://github.com/peter-iakovlev/Telegram/

The Android source code repo is also several months behind the released version.

They simply do a code dump every few months.

While not perfect, this is better than nothing at all in my opinion.

if you dont like whatsapp you can use Signal. it's the open source software that was integrated into whatsapp and is the basis of it's e2e encryption.

both are better options than telegram.

> if you dont like whatsapp you can use Signal

Yeah that doesn't work at all on my phone because it requires me to use Google Cloud Messaging (Google stuff on my phone is firewalled). You can't just connect to the Signal servers -- or your own for that matter -- and be done with it, you need to use Google servers.

> 2. The secret chats still aren't broken. Since 2013, I'd think at least one "crypto expert" (which all said a custom protocol was a bad idea) would have taken the effort to prove it by now.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

See this post also: https://moxie.org/blog/telegram-crypto-challenge/

It's ok i guess. Everyone had used whatsapp with no encryption at all before they implemented p2p.

I switched from skype to telegram because of its much smaller memory footprint. 400mb+ for skype, 63mb(current) for telegram.

I am not going to comment on the quality of telegram but whatsapp have been using top notch crypto for some time: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/

At least that's what they tell you. We can't know for sure because it's closed-source.

WhatsApp is as closed as the version of Telegram you download from the (App|Play) Store.

Before you say "but I can compile it myself", think of how many people will ever bother to do that.

Same as every other app including Signal. For the record, not advocating using Telegram over Signal.

One would do in order to unearth any backdoors. In case of WhatsApp, that would be more difficult.

You can download it from F-Droid where they will compile it from the source for you. Yes, only very few people will use that version, too. But with that logic there isn't any reason for open-source at all.

No, we can easily know for sure, despite the fact that it's closed source.

How?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

How can you know for sure?

By looking at the code.

but it's closed-source, so we can't do that

`tptacek is being obtuse, but it really is pretty straightforward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompiler

It's a forward tick: 'tptacek. We're not writing Lisp macros. :)

So you concede that you were being obtuse ;)

Not really: I'd just rather find out where the point of contention is before getting pedantically prolix.

You understand how frustrating it is for open source advocates to hear that normal users will never look at source code and so there's no practical difference for them between closed source and open source since it's all opaque to them anyways?

That's how literally every security person feels about the argument that closed-source software is unknowable.

We don't need decompilers or special tools to read closed-source applications. Almost all of them --- very much including the Signal-based messengers --- are built with tools that produce straightforward easy to follow assembly code.

So there's no practical difference for you in understanding algorithms between assembly and higher-level source code?

In practice we often don't even need to read the assembly code; we can match control-flow graphs. There really are some software security verification problems that are easier from the binary, particularly if the build system is complex.

But that's sort of besides the point. Reading assembly is more tedious than reading C code, which is in turn more tedious than reading Python code. But you don't get to move the goalposts now. You claimed, repeatedly, that closed-source software was unknowable. It is not; it is in fact very far from unknowable. So the idea that Facebook is going to sneak backdoors into some of its most prominent code under cover of "closed source" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

I think there is another issue to remember, you can't trust the source.

So, I doubt any security professionals would say its preferable to not have the source, but to do the job of verifying the software you have to do it at a lower level than the source anyway, so having the source is a bonus, not a requirement.

According to https://www.eff.org/node/82654

whatsapp 6 out of 7

telegram(in secret chat) 7 out of 7

So i am not going to comment on the quality of whatsapp, because their sources are closed.

But I think you need to mention by default telegram is 4 out of 7, by default whatsapp is 6 out of 7 if you want to compare that kind of thing.

Most people are not going to use the secret chat.

Is anyone so incapable that they would not know how to enable the secure features?

Most people don't care about secret chat. This is for people who care. Granted, they don't have secret chat on Desktop which makes the whole app useless in general unless you only use phones for communication.

>Most people are not going to use the secret chat.

This is a reason i said "It's ok" in my original comment. Few people need encryption in day to day communication, but if you need it telegram is better.

> This is version 1.0 of our scorecard; it is out of date, and is preserved here for purely historical reasons.

It is out of date but they have revised it just after whatsapp implemented p2p encryption. Before that whatsapp rating was even lower.

Completely out of date.

Try this one: https://www.securemessagingapps.com

Recommends Signal and (with caveats) Threema and Wire.

This should be the top reply. I thought this was common knowledge on HN?

It is, but understand that not everybody cares too much about privacy, and Telegram is good--usually reliable, nice apps on all platforms, synced chats, almost limitless file storage, etc.

I think plenty of people care about privacy, which is probably why they don't want to use Facebook's acquired messenger product but rather use something independent and open source.

Yes, but not to the point of paranoia. While I understand people's sentiment about p-2-p encryption, some people really do overreact about the lack of it in Telegram atm.

If anybody really wants to hack you (you exatly) - p-2-p ecryption won't stop them, this is not some kind of absolute defence.

And if you are worried about FSB readin your messages - trust me, they don't, unless you are under suspection already. No organisation in Russian history ever worked this way, only selectively.

Facebook's acquired messenger product uses Signal Protocol for end-to-end encryption. From a security perspective, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are materially, categorically more secure than Telegram.

Hi, we've had this discussion before. You say the crypto is better, which is true, I say it's unverifiable and it has a company behind it with a bad track record for privacy, which is also true. Still we can't agree on which one to use.

That may be true, but Signal offers almost an equal value proposition (unless I've missed something amazing about Telegram) whilst remaining the better option.

I know too well that not enough people care about privacy, sadly.

Interesting because the friend who told me about Telegram said it was more secure other messengers.

Does anybody know how many users are on Telegram and who owns them? Can you invest in them?

Founded by Russian founder of VKontakte, Pavel Durov. I believe they're now headquartered in Germany.

See Wikipedia and https://www.securemessagingapps.com

Pavel Durov is the founder (after he left Russia).

As for numbers: http://www.businessofapps.com/telegram-statistics-and-revenu...

https://telegram.org/blog/100-million https://telegram.org/blog/15-billion

That's because it's how they sell themselves. From their homepage:

> Telegram is a cloud-based mobile and desktop messaging app with a focus on security and speed.

Unfortunately, it tricks a lot of people.

I keep seeing this as a reason not to use Telegram, but here is what I want to know:

As a user who doesn't care about my chats being 100% encrypted, but does want the convenience of multi-platform messaging, is Telegram a better alternative to Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts or Whatsapp? My messages on Telegram may not be encrypted, but are they actively used to siphon information from my messages to contribute to my non-anonymized (or poorly anonymized) advertiser profile, and freely passed or sold to third-parties as they are with those platforms?

I've only seen hardline stances on "If you don't care about privacy, Telegram is great!" or "If you care about privacy, Telegram is awful garbage". What about the grey area in the middle? Where does it fit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com