Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

telegra.ph

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#71

Post by Arathorn »

pmlnr wrote: post #20
snvzz wrote: post #8

The why doesn't matter. (the tl;dr is that they apparently never bothered to support some popular features within the context of e2ee, and believe people ultimately don't care about e2ee by default) What matters is that: - It doesn't do e2ee by default. - It is not a properly documented protocol[0]. - It is not an open protocol. - It has a history of extremely poor cryptography practices[1][2]. - It is not open sourc…

I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…

Matrix's resource utilisation is improving very rapidly at the moment.

Dendrite is still in beta, and hasn't been tuned that much yet, but every release has had a substantial improvement. In other words, if you're not using today's release (0.3.5) you're on stale data. For context, dendrite.matrix.org (running 0.3.5) has ~5K users on it, and is in ~3K rooms spanning 162K users... and its RAM usage is stable at 488MB (occasionally spiking to 2GB during traffic spikes). This doesn't seem unreasonable at all for a chat server of that size. Meanwhile, Synapse has been steadily improving too.

On the client side, Hydrogen (https://hydrogen.element.io, https://github.com/vector-im/hydrogen-web) is our next-gen client implementation, which gives you full E2EE, complete with backup (I have no idea what Durov is banging on about in the OP) - and uses 14MB of RAM for an account in 3,000 rooms spanning 350K users (i.e. my personal one). This is an 100x improvement on Element Web which uses 1.4GB for the same account, although there's also a lot of optimisation that can be done there too.

If I was going to criticise Matrix, I'd focus more on the fact that there are still a lot of papercuts on Element's UX which are holding us back. We're painfully aware of this though and are trying to fix as rapidly as we can.

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#72

Post by kitkat_new »

meibo wrote: post #3

> 1) Users don’t want to lose their entire message history when they lose/change their phones so apps of this kind never become massively popular. I think this is a key point to consider for Signal and the other "good" messengers - there's ways to do secure backups, it just needs to be implemented so well that you won't miss the convenience of Google Drive backups. I tend to fall back on anecdotes a lot, but the firs…

Matrix already has solved it. Message history is stored on the servers, like in Telegram.

With the difference, that the end user has a secret. This secret can be written down/saved and/or be implicitly passed through his/her own devices by e.g. scanning a QR code.

This works simultaneously across arbitrary platforms with arbitrary many devices including web.

Telegram seems to want to create the illusion that there is nothing which can provide the experience of Telegram with encryption. It is not true.

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#73

Post by srhngpr »

coolspot wrote: post #66
srhngpr wrote: post #16

Genuine question, and I'm certainly no expert in this - just a curious end-user, aren't the backups that WhatsApp creates and uploads to iCloud/GDrive kind of encrypted? As in, I can't simply download the backup file and access the messages and media? My understanding is that in order to restore/access said messages and media, you would need the SIM/phone number that created the backup file and would have to register…

WhatsApp backup is unencrypted on both iOS/iCloud and Android/GDrive.

I keep hearing this, but is there an actual reliable source that confirms it? If it were that easy, then I could technically restore anyone's GDrive backup from WhatsApp on my Android phone simply if I got access to the same Google account, but I believe this is not possible as you have to also verify the phone number via SMS.

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#74

Post by kitkat_new »

pmlnr wrote: post #30
snvzz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2) e2e encrypted As you haven't mentioned it: Supporting e2ee isn't enough. It must be the default, else the non-technically inclined will often end up not using e2ee. >As much as I dislike to admit it, this leaves Matrix, and nothing else. I'm in the same position. Never been a fan, but I have to support it, because that's really the only option, even if bloated. I also tried running a server (synapse) with similar…

> it was added way too late in the game. That is not a thing with XMPP. The very essence of it is adding things in, and OMEMO is quite good.

try having verified e2ee conversations with XMPP - good luck.

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#75

Post by tarasmatsyk »

ip26 wrote: post #44
tarasmatsyk wrote: post #25

Here is what puzzles me every time about telegram (which is my primary messager so far) I can get the reasons behind not doing e2e encryption by default to reach more audience (msgs history, lack of resources on start, special backups) What I cannot get is why Durov is blaming FB/WhatsApp that much, it seems to be the main competitor. As for me the story with WhatsApp is clear, it's Facebook and if you like being Zuc…

There was & may still be a lot of anger towards WhatsApp. It was only after it became the de facto messaging app for most of the world that it became a FB property, so I think people felt either betrayed, hoodwinked, or simply trapped without a good exit. Compare to FB Messenger, which was always a FB product from day one, so you always knew what you were getting.

What you say makes sense, In any case, I am glad WhatsApp founder put some money into Signal, he's done an amazing job and deserves all the money.

I am from another side of messagers, as Viber concured Easter Europe - Telegram seemed like an obvious choice after VK got stolen from Durov. Signal was not that popular, that's why I did not start migration earlier

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#76

Post by pmlnr »

kitkat_new wrote: post #57
pmlnr wrote: post #10

E2E chat is an interesting topic. Say I'm using XMPP, my own server, talking to a federated one, all over TLS, including S2S. E2E on top of that, in my personal opinion, is a massive overkill for most cases and people. Related read: https://homebrewserver.club/have-you-considered-the-alternat... It is, however, different, when it comes to a server that I don't control in any form. In that scenario, it is rather usefu…

Honestly you have no idea about real use cases. Almost no one is going to set up a dedicated local server for all of his conversations, hosting only conversations in which you are part of anyways. Most people aren't even able to do this.

> Almost no one is going to set up a dedicated local server for all of his conversations

85000 Prosody servers disagree to some level :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25713679

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#77

Post by meibo »

kitkat_new wrote: post #72
meibo wrote: post #3

> 1) Users don’t want to lose their entire message history when they lose/change their phones so apps of this kind never become massively popular. I think this is a key point to consider for Signal and the other "good" messengers - there's ways to do secure backups, it just needs to be implemented so well that you won't miss the convenience of Google Drive backups. I tend to fall back on anecdotes a lot, but the firs…

Matrix already has solved it. Message history is stored on the servers, like in Telegram. With the difference, that the end user has a secret. This secret can be written down/saved and/or be implicitly passed through his/her own devices by e.g. scanning a QR code. This works simultaneously across arbitrary platforms with arbitrary many devices including web. Telegram seems to want to create the illusion that there is…

Matrix seems to be the best implementation of this I've seen up to now, I agree.

Even just giving you the option to upload to Drive or iCloud, while allowing you to keep the key yourself on a note or another device, would be a step in the right direction for an app like WhatsApp that has no "messages" on the server at all after delivery(or so it always used to work, not sure if it's still the case - my GDPR export from yesterday literally only had my profile picture and contacts).

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#78

Post by kitkat_new »

yatralalala wrote: post #68
pmlnr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…

Have you heard about Wire? Groups up to 500, when they switch to MLS protocol then thousands, e2e, Swiss based and it has kind of ok UI.

uninstalled it after I lost all history, because I didn't open the app often enough.

Found Matrix, happy with it. It likely will adopt MLS, too.

PS: these days swiss based is a bit of a stretch

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#79

Post by rajinikantham »

scubbo wrote: post #26
pampa wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he is right. If you want e2e use signal, threema, or OTR/OMEMO. The majority of telegram users want convenient messaging, group chats, news channels and voice group calls. Think slack with a fast native app.

> news channels I love getting glimpses of how other people use certain apps. I can't imagine _wanting_ news in my messaging app - that's what my news app is for! Very valuable reminder that our own perspective is not always widespread.

If you're interested in these, you should take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeChat#Features !

Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)

#80

Post by [deleted] »

Arathorn wrote: post #71
pmlnr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…

Matrix's resource utilisation is improving very rapidly at the moment. Dendrite is still in beta, and hasn't been tuned that much yet, but every release has had a substantial improvement. In other words, if you're not using today's release (0.3.5) you're on stale data. For context, dendrite.matrix.org (running 0.3.5) has ~5K users on it, and is in ~3K rooms spanning 162K users... and its RAM usage is stable at 488MB…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN