I read that only DMs, not group chats are e2e.
Telegram clearly fails to meet this stronger definition for a simple reason: it does not end-to-end encrypt conversations by default. If you want to use end-to-end encryption in Telegram, you must manually activate an optional end-to-end encryption feature called “Secret Chats” for every single private conversation you want to have. The feature is explicitly not turned onfor the vast majority of conversations, and is only available for one-on-one conversations, and never for group chats with more than two people in them.
oh and the best part, nobody really exactly knows how the encryption in secret chats works, so even if you do turn it on it’s possible it’s completely compromised
I use Telegram a lot. The default non-e2e encrypted group chats are good for easily running bots and suchlike, but yeah they are not particularly secure. I am well aware that only Secret Chats are e2e-encrypted, but probably some casual users are not. Starting one is nowhere near as difficult as the author makes out, but since it typically requires some coordination (you both have to be online) it’s probably not a good choice if you want to conceal metadata about the conversation, i.e. the fact that you are talking to a certain person. That said, I don’t think Signal or anything else is very good at concealing this. That would require some sort of messaging program running as distributed rather than centralized software.
This is bullshit. Their protocol was studied by a group of cryptography experts in March last year. They found a couple ways of attacking it and Telegram thanked them, gave them a cash prize and fixed the issues. Their base finding though was this:
…we formally and in detail model a slight variant of Telegram’s “record protocol” and prove that it achieves security in a suitable bidirectional secure channel model, albeit under unstudied assumptions; this model itself advances the state-of-the-art for secure channels.
I don’t think it is. There’s a reason they developed it in house rather than using more well-tested solutions that are readily available. There is a TON more research that is needed before you can really be sure about it.
History is littered with products that used in-house encryption and they basically all turned out to be junk after enough examination. MTProto has already been shown to have a bunch of issues, do you really think they’ve already found all of them and now it’s fine?
It’s clearly bullshit that nobody knows how it works, there’s a detailed paper right there on it. Do I think Telegram is definitely secure? No, I don’t really know. I think it’s secure against anything short of nation-state attack. It’s definitely secure enough for my purposes, which is mostly asking people if they can get me any weed. I would prefer Signal if my life for some reason depended on nobody decrypting my messages.
Yes I forgot that people on the internet love to pretend like they don’t understand hyperbole. In any case for every expert you can find that is willing to say “this thing is good actually” there are 10 saying “no way I would trust this”
There are two kinds of people who roll their own encryption, morons and bad actors. Which one do you think we are dealing with here?
Why would you trust any Russian company to have good encryption? That just doesn’t make sense.
Elon can’t get FSD working in boring tunnels.
2 Likes
Jeri Ryan being so hot she got Obama elected is my favorite piece of this fandom’s lore.
1 Like
Twitter sleuths seem to think that’s because the link keeps changing and has multiple redirects. I tend to doubt Elon personally put his finger on this one.
1 Like
“unclear”
1 Like
x
Tested in a sandbox browser and there is only one relevant redirect. It’s a 301 from
*/trump-arlington-cemetary-altercation-tiktok
to
*/trump-arlington-cemetary-altercation-video
1 Like
