this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
67 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

1387 readers
245 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Telegram continues trying to repair its reputation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (16 children)

Does anybody really use Telegram for "privacy"? People can't seriously believe that thing is secure. Their FAQ indirectly states that group chats aren't encrypted and explicitly states that "secret chats" are.

We support two layers of secure encryption. Server-client encryption is used in Cloud Chats (private and group chats), Secret Chats use an additional layer of client-client encryption. All data, regardless of type, is encrypted in the same way — be it text, media or files.

I have never recommended Telegram to anybody. It's just like another facebook, AOL, ICQ, or whatever messenger. I actually don't personally know a single telegram user who uses secret chats. They are quite useless. They don't sync across devices.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] rdri 0 points 1 month ago (15 children)

Oh believe me, group chats are encrypted. Problem is, most of them are public, so that's only to protect them from being exposed to dump/search server side. And yeah, their encryption is not e2e. That's encryption nonetheless.

[–] teolan 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Telegram's "encryption" does not protect in any way against dump/search server side (outside of secrets chats).

Telegram's "encryption" only protects from your ISP spying, and it's the kind of encryption that everyone implements. Any website that does not implement such encryption would show a big red "Not secure" warning in your browser.

[–] rdri -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

In their explanation it was specifically stated that it should be either impossible or too difficult. Keeping keys and content separately, that's what it's about iirc. Either way the point of telegram is not in privacy for everyone. You trade protection for convenience (cloud data and great clients), and if you want you can use secret chats. That's it. Seeing their user base, it suits most people. We'll see if their server data gets leaked or something, though it didn't happen yet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just use something that isn't a child abuse Russian chat app. There are so many better options.

[–] rdri 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Use for what? Are there alternatives that aggregate news, have bot support, non-electron clients and immediately sync between desktop and mobile?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes? You aren't going to find a one to one telegram clone. A replacement isn't a clone

Matrix is probably what you want but it isn't encrypted e2ee by default.

Signal and Simplex chat have full encryption but are closer to a WhatsApp alternative

[–] rdri 1 points 1 month ago

A replacement isn't a clone

You know I wasn't asking for a replacement. You're suggesting e2ee-first software to people who might not really need it in the first place.

Personally, when I think about all the quirks and requirements that must be met for some chat to happily accept a new member in a e2ee scheme, I get mad. My daily chats, gifs and cat photos aren't worth everyone's effort and discomfort.

Also, I use WhatsApp not because I like it but because it's easier than forcing dozens of people to use something else. I hate it because of how it works, and it doesn't have anything to do with e2ee part (it's worthless for stuff I use WhatsApp for). I like that it dropped electron though - I value my ram.

[–] teolan 1 points 1 month ago

Either way the point of telegram is not in privacy for everyone. You trade protection for convenience (cloud data and great clients)

That's not what their marketing says.

Seeing their user base, it suits most people.

Most people have zero idea what kind of security telegram provides.

[–] teolan 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In their explanation it was specifically stated that it should be either impossible or too difficult. Keeping keys and content separately, that's what it's about

They're lying? Encryption at rest does not protect at all against the server snooping around. When you send or receive a message, the server has to see it in plaintext unless you have E2EE. So there is a way for them to access the plaintext of any message you receive, and it happens automatically billions of times per day. It's pretty easy.

[–] rdri 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's wrong. There is no plaintext transfer. While a lot of stuff can potentially happen on server every second as you said, it doesn't happen according to them. I don't trust that fully either but that's their argument. You can look up encryption schemes in their faq.

[–] teolan 1 points 1 month ago

I didn't say that there was any network plaintext transfer. I said the server needs to have access to the plaintext at some point.

it doesn't happen according to them

That's not actually what they say, because it would be the cryptographic equivalent of claiming they invented a new color.

They talk about encryption at rest without mentioning the rest of their infrastructure to confuse the hell out of people that don't understand encryption. Given your comments it seems to work.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)