Hacker News Reader

Comment by yatsyk | Hacker News Reader

I've not found any attempts to help them apart from this bug report.

>TextSecure's interest is in security, whereas Telegram's interest seems to be in money and power

I can't read minds or even their messenger logs so I can't comment what is their interest but I'd be interested to know why you think so

> TextSecure completely safe app

Just wrong. How could you call something "completely safe" or bug free?

>Each of these messengers is safe to passive listening >This is mistaken because Telegram has been proven vulnerable to MITM attacks

How Telegram is prone to passive listening?

View on HN

>> TextSecure completely safe app

> Just wrong. How could you call something "completely safe" or bug free?

Where did he say that "TextSecure [was a] completely safe app"?

Why are you misrepresenting his words?

He said TextSecure was not proven insecure (As was Telegram). That does not mean or imply that it is safe or secure.

Telegram seems to be interested in money and power because they've turned down offers from Moxie (the creator of TextSecure and a well-known cryptographer) to join forces. There's no reason to do that unless they were interested in money or power more than security.

I didn't say TextSecure is completely safe. I said Telegram has been demonstrated to be broken.

Telegram is prone to passive listening because their design doesn't prevent it. There's nothing stopping someone from MITM'ing every Telegram secret chat when it's first initiated. It's in the design.

Their contest means nothing, because due to the way the contest is designed, it's impossible to MITM or other side channel attacks like timing attacks. These are the real attack vectors, yet the format of the contest prevents anyone from employing them.

>Telegram seems to be interested in money and power because they've turned down offers from Moxie (the creator of TextSecure and a well-known cryptographer) to join forces.

Is there a cause-effect relationship I'm missing here?

> I didn't say TextSecure is completely safe.

Yes you do. "TextSecure completely safe app" was copied from your message before you or someone else edited it. I've not typed it but copied exact phrase from your message.

You copied it from your own message, not mine. http://i.imgur.com/pxMVDwA.png

The best part was when he copied it from your quoting of his message, but removed the "not" that came before it

You seem to be missing the larger point. Nobody is proposing that secure messaging apps should not exist. Everyone is better when more people try, iterate and fail (then recover and fix) to create secure messaging solutions.

What's unsafe and unproductive is when bozos jump in the pool, apparently ignorant or otherwise misrepresentative of the reality of how difficult it is to create a correct solution -- and confidently declare their implementations to be trustable.

If the messaging on Telegram had been, the world needs a secure messaging solution and we're committed to building it starting with this thing which we think is pretty good for XYZ, nobody would be objecting. Instead, these guys presented themselves as having solved a problem which is known to be difficult, and moreover using an unlikely method.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com