WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

Post by eridius » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

msh wrote: post #123

StavrosK wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12 words seems so much more friendly, at least to English speakers I have a feeling that English speakers are the minority of WhatsApp users. > if you don't speak a common language with your chat partner then the app is useless anyway They do speak a common language, it's usually just not English.

And the language of the clients might not be the same. I might write in English to a German friend, but my whatsapp is localized to Danish and his to Germany. How would whatsapp know what language to present the words in?

Post by pfg » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

jd20 wrote: post #181

pfg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From that perspective, I'm still inclined to trust apple's iMessage a bit more especially after recent events. // edit: got my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11432629 I'm curious, is that because of what they did in the FBI case, or for technical reasons? IIRC iMessage would allow Apple to add public keys which they (or the FBI/$ADVERSARY) control as a sort-of backdoor as well. I can't say that I…

The unfortunate reality too is that average users will never go to the extra trouble of authenticating keys themselves. I'm also more likely to trust a company like Apple or Google with key management than a "trusted third party" (simply because they're bigger companies, with more valuable brands to protect, and resources to throw at the problem). So, it feels like for the average consumer, a product like iMessage ti…

Post by derefr » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #191

aw3c2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? "Axolotl" at least has seriously pronunciation issues so I am glad it is not used "user-side".

Because words coming from Nahuatl are cool! (coyotl, mesquitl, tomatl, ahuacatl, etc.) See more from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_from_ind... They’re distinctively spelled, don’t collide with existing search terms, often have available domains, etc. Most importantly, they anticipated the web 2.0 trend of ending words with two consonants in a row. ;) Finally, just look at this guy: https://uploa…

Post by aw3c2 » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #154

aw3c2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? "Axolotl" at least has seriously pronunciation issues so I am glad it is not used "user-side".

For my part: because "Axolotl" is one of the most widely name-dropped terms in hipster cryptography, and because it's been adopted by other projects, and because it's distinctive, and because they basically own the term. In a stroke, everyone doing secure key ratchets would have been using their product . It's also just a cool name.

Post by pfg » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

dest wrote: post #180

MrMullen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that Telegram uses custom in house encryption and they say "trust us", it's good. Telegram encryption can't be verified.

As long as the clients are open-source and the encryption is end to end, can't it really be verified? Whatever the server, if the client encryption is reliable, data can't be read on the server side.

  if the client encryption is reliable