> On the contrary, Telegram apps have been open-source and its encryption fully documented since 2013.
Yeah and well known to be a cryptographically poor.
Yeah and well known to be a cryptographically poor.
I know a lot of people who use telegram over whatsapp because it's more secure.
2016 (corrected from 2019): https://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-using-telegram-right...
2017: https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.857/2017/project/19.pdf
2018: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/987372998935105539
2019: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/25/chinese-a...
2019: lmao https://twitter.com/durumcrustulum/status/116034777473242316...
Etc
p.s. and is based on information which in 2020 is not anymore actual as most things were corrected.
Got a citation for this? I'm having a hard time finding it:
> p.s. and is based on information which in 2020 is not anymore actual as most things were corrected.
(1) homegrown encryption which hasn't been extensively audited, which should be considered suspect by default because it's usually broken.
(2) Most chats are not encrypted at all.
ad1: starting from quite a long time, secret chats use MTProto 2.0 which is build on stanard crypto primitives you're seeing everywhere. Read it here high level: https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end and free to verify on github.
ad2: this is not true, and is discussion about user choice, not security.
please do not spread false old information. world changes.
Chats are in fact encrypted in non-Secret chats, just to the server and not e2e.
Please, people, don't contribute to misinformation.
(1) I don't see any review by cryptographers that MTProto 2.0 is safer. Where is the evidence?
(2) Unless this is also a recent change, it is true. It's not about choice really, it's about the default behavior, since most users won't choose.