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

Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 257 posts

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#221

Post by egberts1 »

AnonC wrote: post #213
egberts1 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pffft. Signal is proprietary? it is on https://Github.com/SignalApp and i’ve got my own variant of Signal server and client running. and runs on not only mobile but Linux too.

...except that for nearly a year you didn't have access to any updates to the Signal server code on their public repo while they were secretly adding Mobilecoin to it.

of course. it a necessary submarine method to a rollout if not enough developers are on hand. Bad move, IMHO. but it is easily excised.

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#222

Post by gefhfffh »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #187
feanaro wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Regarding the security theater, the backups encrypted with your password are far more vulnerable to being compromised than any of the popular e2e encryption protocols. Hmm? How so? Surely this depends on the strength of your password.

All messages are encrypted with one key. Break one key, and all messages will be accessible to an attacker. Proper encryption protocols rotate encryption keys and compromising one message will not compromise the rest.

So PGP and the encryption protocol of Threema aren't proper encryption protocols?

Then, how do you break the key?

Brute force? If you break one key that way, it's likely you could break equally secure keys as well.

Access to the device? Well then you have access to everything anyways

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#223

Post by [deleted] »

grishka wrote: post #159
amelius wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really strange, given what this country has done on social media to control foreign elections, allegedly, just saying.

As a Russian, this goes both ways. I really hate how the US tries its damnest to pretend they control the entire planet and meddles with internal politics of other countries, something they have no business even knowing about, all the time. Sovereignty? What sovereignty?

[deleted]

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#224

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

theshrike79 wrote: post #200
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone need e2ee on group chats anyway?

Nope. If you're managing a 100+ user channel, encryption matters fuck-all unless your invitation process is 100% airtight and every user has all their devices encrypted and locked up at all times. Data will leak anyway so E2EE won't bring any real advantages.

That was a rhetorical question, of course, but thank you for confirming my opinion.

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#225

Post by another_kel »

grishka wrote: post #150
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #83

People are consistently surprised that Telegram is not encrypted by default in any setting. You have to create a device-to-device-specific encrypted chat with your counter-party. It's not a reasonable security model, vastly outclassed by (the still quite flawed) Signal. Ultimately, we need encrypted-by-default messaging based on public/private key pairs (obscured from the uninterested user, of course).

> based on public/private key pairs I said it many times and I'll say it again: this can't possibly work in the real world, period. People are notoriously terrible with passwords already. So terrible in fact that VKontakte (I worked there, both with Pavel and after he was ousted) had, and still has, a department dedicated to account recovery. And those are passwords, short strings that you can actually remember. You…

>In my world, the ability to recover your account if you lose everything is a hard requirement for any product that is meant to reach mass adoption.

I don't think it matters as much for messenger attached to your phone number. Even if you lose all your conversations you still can be reached by the same identificator and most of your contracts are stored in phonebook anyway.

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#226

Post by grishka »

another_kel wrote: post #225
grishka wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on public/private key pairs I said it many times and I'll say it again: this can't possibly work in the real world, period. People are notoriously terrible with passwords already. So terrible in fact that VKontakte (I worked there, both with Pavel and after he was ousted) had, and still has, a department dedicated to account recovery. And those are passwords, short strings that you can actually remember. You…

>In my world, the ability to recover your account if you lose everything is a hard requirement for any product that is meant to reach mass adoption. I don't think it matters as much for messenger attached to your phone number. Even if you lose all your conversations you still can be reached by the same identificator and most of your contracts are stored in phonebook anyway.

Phone numbers aren't good identifiers for other reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30258495

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#227

Post by CodeGlitch »

vinay427 wrote: post #217
swah wrote: post #176

The "sad thing" is that Whatsapp is 10x-50x more popular in my country and its quite hard to integrate (APIs, bots) compared to Telegram, at least for "small business". I wonder if Telegram would also be more closed if it was #1...

Telegram doesn't support bots and most other advanced features for E2EE conversations either. It seems at least as valid (IMO) to speculate that WhatsApp's lack of API/bot support is due to an additional technical hurdle than its dominant market status.

> Telegram doesn't support bots

I think it does:

https://core.telegram.org/bots

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#228

Post by [deleted] »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #227
vinay427 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram doesn't support bots and most other advanced features for E2EE conversations either. It seems at least as valid (IMO) to speculate that WhatsApp's lack of API/bot support is due to an additional technical hurdle than its dominant market status.

> Telegram doesn't support bots I think it does: https://core.telegram.org/bots

[deleted]

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#229

Post by TuringTest »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #95
theshrike79 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest thing is that Telegram's group management tools blow anything FB has out of the water by a nautical mile. If you only need the one channel and you need to manage a 100+ people, Telegram is by far the best tool. For "communities" Discord is a bit better, since you can split stuff to multiple channels. Anyone with basic knowledge of the internet can also install bots on both to manage dozens of different t…

Does anyone need e2ee on group chats anyway?

Political parties typically do, and some are known to use Telegram for their internal groups.

Any leakage of secret knowledge shared only through these groups could be detected as treason by one of the participants in that channel. Having several channels with fewer and fewer members, closer to the party's leadership, is a typical configuration to maintain control of the most secret information.

Re: Telegram Became the Anti-Facebook

#230

Post by lpcvoid »

bilal4hmed wrote: post #197
lpcvoid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the main problem with Matrix for me. If they would just develop a good desktop client, I would be all over it.

Have you tried some of the alternatives like fluffychat ? I feel their UI is far ahead of the official clients

Actually, no. Thanks for the hint, I'll be testing that soon :)
Post reply on HN