11–20 of 20 posts
So this thread disappeared from the top and all pages besides Newest. But I see post on page 3 from 3 hours ago with 3 upvotes so this should be somewhere on 1-2nd page. HN mods don't like criticism?
Or enough people found your arguments so astoundingly bad that they flagged it off even those pages...
So this thread disappeared from the top and all pages besides Newest. But I see post on page 3 from 3 hours ago with 3 upvotes so this should be somewhere on 1-2nd page. HN mods don't like criticism?
As DanBC posted[1] in the other thread:
>>You seem to be mistaken about why they do this. It's nothing to do with pushing their app or their approach. They'd welcome good well-formed apps to compete with them. But when they see an app that claims to be secure they have an ethical duty to let people know if it is obviously not secure.
>>Most people are not bashing just for the sake of bashing. Some people need good cryptography software to avoid imprisonment, or torture, or state-killing. This isn't about stopping someone's teen-angsty poetry from being discovered by a sibling, it's about protecting political dissidents from an oppressive regime. In that context pointing out that a software is broken is not mindless bashing, it is a crucial part of the cryptography process.
>Go make your own stuff and don’t listen to HN or any other skeptical community.
Unproven cryptographic systems masquerading as secure need to be criticized. It is very, very dangerous when non-crypto people pretend to be crypto people and call their systems secure.
So this thread disappeared from the top and all pages besides Newest. But I see post on page 3 from 3 hours ago with 3 upvotes so this should be somewhere on 1-2nd page. HN mods don't like criticism?
So this thread disappeared from the top and all pages besides Newest. But I see post on page 3 from 3 hours ago with 3 upvotes so this should be somewhere on 1-2nd page. HN mods don't like criticism?
>TextSecure folks: instead of ranting that “our stuff exists already, but we got no money and we got no cross-platform support Y U NO USE our protocol?” and using political tricks, go make better protocol and market yourself better. As DanBC posted[1] in the other thread: >>You seem to be mistaken about why they do this. It's nothing to do with pushing their app or their approach. They'd welcome good well-formed apps…
This piece is garbage with a very clear undertone of bitterness that is completely unrelated to Telegram.
I don't have flesh in this game one way or another, but when I read the article, it seemed to be a pretty damning indictment on Telegram, probably not what the author was trying to communicate. I think the gap in understanding here, is that when it comes to security, cryptography in particular, it's not the case that the critic has to demonstrate where something is broken , the responsibility is on the part of the de…
It's not some third party adversary to be worried about, but an internal adversary who might harbor ill intent (or even if they mean well, might be forced to become evil under secret court orders.) Telegram are advertising a system which they claim is encrypted end-to-end, which means that even with physical access to the servers which are routing messages, one would not be able to perform MITM attacks. However, the…
You shouldn't listen to Hacker News because I might write a 1000 word comment about message authentication codes and RSA padding? Ok.
So in sum: - Telegram said they were super-secure - A bunch of skeptics on HN posted long comments saying why Telegram wasn't actually secure - A few days later, someone broke Telegram - Therefore, don't listen to HN?