• balsoft
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    There’s user to server encryption, just not e2e.

    That’s exactly what the comment said: The only encryption that applies to most chats on that platform should be transport encryption via TLS. It’s about the same level of encryption as Lemmy PMs.

    The fact that Telegram doesn’t cooperate with French authorities doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cooperate with other authorities or sell your data to the highest bidder. They have all the technical means for it.

    Don’t use a regular Telegram chat if your life depends on the messages being private. Use XMPP, Matrix with E2EE, or at the very least Signal. Heck, even WhatsApp is (reportedly) better, as it claims to provide E2EE and that’s been checked by some security professionals who have been given access to the source code. If you absolutely must use Telegram for something like that, only use secret chats.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s not correct. Toy may call it TLS but it’s a custom protocol. Data is not kept unencrypted on their servers, according to their docs.

      • balsoft
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Toy may call it TLS but it’s a custom protocol.

        Sure, it’s mtproto. The security it provides for non-encrypted chats (which are the absolute majority of chats) is not any different from just having TLS for transport. It’s potentially even worse as it’s not as well-audited.

        Data is not kept unencrypted on their servers, according to their docs.

        That just means that they store both your data in some encrypted way and the key. They can still read it trivially. You don’t even have to know the protocol to understand why: you can add new devices without having any other device online, and read all non-secret chats. It might also just mean disk encryption, in which case it’s plain-text in RAM while the server is running.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          is not any different from just having TLS for transport

          Yes, in simple terms, all encrypted transfer protocols are similarly protected from mitm attacks.

          That just means that they store both your data in some encrypted way and the key. They can still read it trivially.

          They can and they said the decryption keys are always kept separately (there are probably more layers than I can describe) from the data to make sure the servers are not used to decrypt the data locally. They can be lying for all I care. The bigger problem is that people somehow assume this a huge threat, while all previous cases didn’t involve anything like that. People are getting into trouble for their public content - protected by some encryption but visible to anyone interested (who then report it to oppressive authorities).

          While some go extra mile to explain to you how you should use e2e for your family group chats, real criminals do their stuff everywhere (especially on telegram) for years, staying safe. Problem is not how weak or strong the encryption is, but that once you are under oppression and do opposition activities, you’re going to learn by yourself how to deal with it. Signal will not save you from people in your group chats if they are there to report on you.

          • balsoft
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Problem is not how weak or strong the encryption is

            Here it’s definitely part of discussion. The context was

            It’s encrypted anonymous communication capabilities.

            It’s barely anonymous, and poorly encrypted. The latter is the reason Durov is in custody while Signal devs are scott free. He could easily turn illegal stuff over to French authorities, but doesn’t.

            The bigger problem is that people somehow assume this a huge threat, while all previous cases didn’t involve anything like that.

            There have absolutely been cases where a backdoor/weakness/lack of encryption used to catch criminals before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennetcom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat . I distinctly remember that there were also arrests of opposition activists in Russia based on personal messages in VKontakte, but can’t find the news right now.

            real criminals do their stuff everywhere (especially on telegram) for years, staying safe.

            Some are staying safe, others are being caught precisely because of this.

            Problem is not how weak or strong the encryption is, but that once you are under oppression and do opposition activities, you’re going to learn by yourself how to deal with it.

            Using better encryption schemes is definitely part of that.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s barely anonymous, and poorly encrypted. The latter is the reason Durov is in custody

              There is no logic here. If it was poor it would be very easy to track anyone including criminals. You can check the news to find the reasons.

              There have absolutely been cases where a backdoor/weakness/lack of encryption used to catch criminals before

              I meant telegram related cases.

              Some are staying safe, others are being caught precisely because of this.

              I didn’t see any proofs of that.

              Using better encryption schemes is definitely part of that.

              Part of what? I don’t get the point here.