Live data from Hacker News

Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

theintercept.com

21–30 of 351 posts

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#21
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah somewhere in their documentation they state that they are end-to-end encrypted because the connections peer1 zoom and zoom peer2 are encrypted. I cant find the page anymore but they really tried to redefine the name for end to end encryption...

end-to-middle-to-end encrypted...

Point-to-point encryption

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#22
post #13

End-to-end encryption has been named as a required feature for telehealth in Australia. Interest in telehealth has gone from zero to infinity over the past two weeks for obvious reasons. So I've been trying really hard to work out if Zoom is E2E, and reached the same conclusions as the article. First, it isn't, and second, Zoom are really going out of their way to obscure that fact. It's great that The Intercept is t…

Hopefully we've reconsidered the laws of mathematics in the last few years ... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema... "“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull. Turnbull’s comments came as he proposed a new law to force tech companies to give security services access to encrypted messages." "The UK home s…

> The UK home secretary Amber Rudd has previously called encryption "completely unacceptable" ... Theresa May has said that the big internet companies give terrorists "safe spaces" to communicate.

Ironically, the UK government in fact uses Zoom for all its meetings depsite privacy and security implications. Saudi Arabia, take note.

Ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-boris-johnson-zo...

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#23
I am willing to chalk this up to an honest mistake considering "end-to-end" encryption as being from the client's end to the server, although that's not the accepted use of the term. This appears to be their explanation. I hope their marketing team fixes this now that it's been pointed out to them though.

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#25
post #13

End-to-end encryption has been named as a required feature for telehealth in Australia. Interest in telehealth has gone from zero to infinity over the past two weeks for obvious reasons. So I've been trying really hard to work out if Zoom is E2E, and reached the same conclusions as the article. First, it isn't, and second, Zoom are really going out of their way to obscure that fact. It's great that The Intercept is t…

Now I know why it was the only video conferencing service that worked in Dubai. Others, like meet, WhatsApp - video are not working for censorship reasons.

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#26
post #17

It's disappointing to see a company that has better tech than its rivals playing these games. I have been singing Zoom's praises, but this really makes me want to look elsewhere. What a bummer.

Zoom has always been shady as hell. Between the ridiculous web server on MacOS, web client anti-patterns and other endless nonsense the only explanation for their popularity is good marketing.

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully we've reconsidered the laws of mathematics in the last few years ... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema... "“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull. Turnbull’s comments came as he proposed a new law to force tech companies to give security services access to encrypted messages." "The UK home s…

> The UK home secretary Amber Rudd has previously called encryption "completely unacceptable" ... Theresa May has said that the big internet companies give terrorists "safe spaces" to communicate. Ironically, the UK government in fact uses Zoom for all its meetings depsite privacy and security implications. Saudi Arabia, take note. Ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-boris-johnson-zo...

So with the right URL, you can tell them yourself!

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#29

Does anyone know of a video conferencing system (3++++ participants) that actually does do end-to-end encryption?

It looks like WebRTC doesn't support it, so basically no-one can because all these browser-based technologies end up just being WebRTC in the end.

From the Jitsi Meet README:

> WebRTC does not (yet) provide a way of conducting multi-party conversations with end-to-end encryption. Unless you consistently compare DTLS fingerprints with your peers vocally, the same goes for one-to-one calls.

Re: Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing

#30
post #16
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one provider that claims to provide end-to-end encrypted video calls but doesn't.

GoToMeeting claims end to end encryption[1] and in the same sentence say it's just SSL just like Zoom. Never the less they offer call-in as well so end to end becomes impossible right there. I have serious doubts about any conference software offering real end to end encryption as it's unrealistic for clients to be dealing with that many av streams. 1. https://support.goto.com/meeting/help/security-faqs-g2m05001...

End-to-end encryption doesn't require participants to receive full-quality video from everyone. Each client can be responsible for encoding their own video feed at multiple quality levels simultaneously – what WebRTC calls simulcasting. That does increase required processing power and upload bandwidth, but not to the point of infeasibility. And you do inevitably leak the identity of the person currently talking, as the server has to know whether to relay the high- or low-quality video stream for each participant to each other participant, and it can trivially tell the difference between the two based on bitrate. But that's much less bad than leaking the whole video stream.
Post reply on HN