Not sure what the policy is on plagiarism, but this post plagiarized my write up.
The structure is the same and the section headings are the same. It is blatant plagiarism.
The structure is the same and the section headings are the same. It is blatant plagiarism.
At present the OP is nearly blank anyhow.
I stand by my assessment at the time, but I haven’t checked Telegram since then and don’t know what, if anything, has changed.
Seems to me like the “end to end” was an afterthought. Just to claim that they can encrypt messages. While 99% of messages are stored right there, and we must trust telegram not to give that data to anyone. Why should we?
https://gitlab.com/edu4rdshl/blog/commit/2fc4d85714d2bde3aca...
...
+ 7 https://medium.com/@thegrugq/operational-telegram-cbbaadb901... by https://twitter.com/thegrugq
“Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.”[1]
[0] https://twitter.com/Edu4rdSHL/status/1081971696431706113
Check out the "MTProto is not IND-CCA secure" section Eduard Toloza supposedly wrote: https://gitlab.com/edu4rdshl/blog/blob/9d490385d53cdf7048d16...
> Here I briefly present the two attacks that show that MTProto is not IND-CCA secure. We assume the reader to be familiar with the notion of IND-CCA security...
> Once again, I stress that the attacks are only of theoretical nature and we do not see a way of turning them into full-plaintext recovery. Yet, we believe that these attacks are yet another proof [https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/428.pdf] that designing your own crypto rarely is a good idea.
And compare it to Jakob Jakobsen and Claudio Orlandi's paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
The "author" just swapped out the "we" for "I". Aside from the text in bold at the bottom, there's no original content. It's plagiarism.
After contacting the author he has removed the plagiarized content.
And I’m pretty sure comments like this are against HN policy as they degrade the quality of discourse.