211–220 of 228 posts
There's a pull request with 127.0.0.1 in it. https://github.com/zapret-info/z-i/pull/10/commits/8394b2026... Wonder if they'll merge it.
The same "hack" was used to block Google and other huge sites. Once they found out this "hole", they introduced a white list of resources which shouldn't be blocked.
These guys are really "smart" )
There's a pull request with 127.0.0.1 in it. https://github.com/zapret-info/z-i/pull/10/commits/8394b2026... Wonder if they'll merge it.
It a repo of "leaked" blacklist. Roskomnadzor don't publish it to public and share it only with ISPs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any proof?
What would you like me to prove? That Telegram has handed their keys to the Russian government? Difficult, but unnecessary. That Telegram was deliberately designed in a manner which enables its owners to easily hand over the keys to the government? Easy to prove, Signal and Whatsapp do not share the same surveillance features.
Who pays for it now that it is free?
I for one refuse to think that Facebook bought it for a number of billion USD and keep operating and improving it for no good reason.
We also know, based on what they had to tell EU and based on their new EULA - that they tried to introduce by default - that they wanted to harvest metadata from it.
Attacking Telegram while simultaneously praising WhatsApp seems really strange to me.
As for Signal, that's another story. They have their own issues but I personally believe it is better than both Telegram and WhatsApp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you like me to prove? That Telegram has handed their keys to the Russian government? Difficult, but unnecessary. That Telegram was deliberately designed in a manner which enables its owners to easily hand over the keys to the government? Easy to prove, Signal and Whatsapp do not share the same surveillance features.
Since you seem to like WhatsApp: Who pays for it now that it is free? I for one refuse to think that Facebook bought it for a number of billion USD and keep operating and improving it for no good reason. We also know, based on what they had to tell EU and based on their new EULA - that they tried to introduce by default - that they wanted to harvest metadata from it. Attacking Telegram while simultaneously praising W…
Look at them both from a purely technical perspective.
WhatsApp has made an effort to ensure that they're limited to only monetizing the metadata of the chats, Telegram by design does not share this limitation.
Even if you don't trust Whatsapp, you know that they'd have to push a backdoored app to everyone in order to intercept your chats. Telegram is backdoored by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you actually care about security/privacy, why not just use Signal?
Signal isn't anonymous. You need a phone number. Why did the all-knowing Moxie require this? No one has ever provided a good reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads like FUD, there are reasons for and against telegram and I won't get into them here. But truth is often stranger than fiction[0] and there are actors with something to gain from making telegram look poor. [0]: The story of Karl Koch for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_(hacker) who's death was ruled a suicide, and his history is... "colourful".
If you actually care about security/privacy, why not just use Signal?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13396083
I'm running this on my own server (using ejabberd [1] as Prosody - which I used previously - still has problems with some of the required XEPs[2]) using several different clients (Conversations [3] on Android, Pidgin on Linux, etc).
The one weak link in OMEMO is the difficulty of verifying the authenticity of the device key signatures used by communication counterparts. These signatures are 64-character hexadecimal strings which the user is supposed to verify being authentic before initiating encrypted communications. Humans as not very good at this task, computer can help but they can also be tampered with. There are ways around this problem - e.g. meeting up in person before initiating communications (viz. PGP key signing parties), sending Q-codes off-line, using algorithms to turn those numbers into things which humans are better at recognising (e.g. the coloured emoji used by Telegram etc.). Encrypted group chat only works if all participants have all other participants in their address lists. Then again, it does work and it is fully standardised with several compatible implementations.
[1] https://github.com/processone/ejabberd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you actually care about security/privacy, why not just use Signal?
Or XMPP+OMEMO which adds things like multi-client support and encrypted group chat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13396083 I'm running this on my own server (using ejabberd [1] as Prosody - which I used previously - still has problems with some of the required XEPs[2]) using several different clients (Conversations [3] on Android, Pidgin on Linux, etc). The one weak link in OMEMO is the difficulty of verifying…
It's "good enough" for 90% of cases, but it depends on clients supporting emoji.. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I this particular case the centralization around the push service of google actually helps. No, it does not, and you even argued why. This centralization makes it harder to make the system more resilient. We need an alternative to GCM.
BTW, microG GmsCore does GCM (although I'm not sure if it also implements FCM APIs), while being pure FLOSS.
The founder of Telegram has just put this in his public Telegram channel - https://t.me/durov : "For the last 24 hours Telegram has been under a ban by internet providers in Russia. The reason was our refusal to provide encryption keys to Russian security agencies. For us, this was an easy decision. We promised our users 100% privacy and would rather cease to exist than violate this promise. Despite the ban, we haven…