Do you believe everything you hear a company say who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy?
End to end doesn’t necessarily mean that the middle can’t read it, it just means strangers listening can’t read it. WhatsApp isn’t open source, and auditing that encryption on a binary level would prove difficult.
As we have seen, companies can also bow to the wills of governments, and if enough pressure is applied they often agree to backdoors.
The key word is stranger. WhatsApp made the encryption you’re using and could (and I’m sure does) have the ability to decrypt it.
True end to end is where you and your partner have keys and you both encrypt on the client side, and don’t tell the middle man. That way no malicious intent from the server could ever decrypt the actual message.
True end to end is where you and your partner have keys and you both encrypt on the client side, and don’t tell the middle man. That way no malicious intent from the server could ever decrypt the actual message.
That’s how the Signal protocol they’re using is working
You seem confused. E2EE doesn’t mean peer-to-peer. Signal protocol isn’t peer-to-peer. You don’t need to be peer-to-peer to have secure communication because E2EE makes it so that the server can’t read what the two ends are writing.
Can you prove to me that WhatsApp actually encrypts the message on the phone in such a way that WhatsApp can’t see the message when it’s on their server?
Do you truly believe a company owned by Meta would provide that kind of security from THEM? A company whose income is profiting on DATA supplied by users?
Do you believe everything you hear a company say who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy?
End to end doesn’t necessarily mean that the middle can’t read it, it just means strangers listening can’t read it. WhatsApp isn’t open source, and auditing that encryption on a binary level would prove difficult.
As we have seen, companies can also bow to the wills of governments, and if enough pressure is applied they often agree to backdoors.
If it’s not open source, it’s a scam.
I thought it meant nobody between the two ends can read it.
End->(public network)->WhatsApp->(public network)->End
So, no stranger can read it.
The key word is stranger. WhatsApp made the encryption you’re using and could (and I’m sure does) have the ability to decrypt it.
True end to end is where you and your partner have keys and you both encrypt on the client side, and don’t tell the middle man. That way no malicious intent from the server could ever decrypt the actual message.
That’s how the Signal protocol they’re using is working
Can we verify they are still using the Signal protocol?
If they are, they’ve probably modified it.
Not realiably, afaik
WhatsApp is not peer to peer.
Nobody said it was?
What is it you thought they were saying?
You seem confused. E2EE doesn’t mean peer-to-peer. Signal protocol isn’t peer-to-peer. You don’t need to be peer-to-peer to have secure communication because E2EE makes it so that the server can’t read what the two ends are writing.
Can you prove to me that WhatsApp actually encrypts the message on the phone in such a way that WhatsApp can’t see the message when it’s on their server?
Do you truly believe a company owned by Meta would provide that kind of security from THEM? A company whose income is profiting on DATA supplied by users?
Tell me you believe this.