The facts around Zoom and encryption for meetings/webinars

Post by lern_too_spel » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #104

lern_too_spel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, come on, that’s not the same thing at all. Here Zoom actively decrypts the stream so that it’s compatible with non-Zoom clients and then advertises it as end-to-end I took issue with a specific definition that precludes both products. I didn't say that both products use the same protocol. > you’re comparing it to (outdated, FYI) information Has the implementation changed in any way that makes it meet the defini…

> I took issue with a specific definition that precludes both products. This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to compare Zoom and iMessage; it’s just that I chose this one to respond to.

Post by detaro » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:38 AM UTC

tommoor wrote: post #28

softwaredoug wrote: post #20

Is there any evidence that other teleconferencing solutions meet or exceed what's described in this blog article? I just find the Zoom hate weird. We have no reason to think Teams, Hangouts, or anything else does anything close to or better than this. Lots of reason to suspect they probably don't. Don't get me wrong, I think the scrutiny is good, and will lead to positive outcomes. But we probably need to scrutinize…

The video must be decrypted to do the scaling, transcoding, and dynamic bitrate adjustment for different platforms and network speeds – there's no way around this. All of the group video providers will be decoding video on the server to achieve the reliability everyone wants.

Post by wheelerwj » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #15

wheelerwj wrote: post #11

wow!! zoom you were better off not having written that blog. you guys are some shady assholes. Everything from the text to the graphics are intended to mislead and obscure. I don’t think i’ve seen a company act in such bad faith since theranos was a thing.

In my opinion they seem better off from this blog post. For example yesterday I read this comment[1] and it seemed to say Zoom always decrypts the content on the servers, in which case it's very bad to say it's "end-to-end encrypted". But this blog post explains that if you don't have any external connector attached, it in fact is end-to-end encrypted, no false advertising. When you have an external connector attache…

Post by angry_octet » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:52 AM UTC

tommoor wrote: post #112

angry_octet wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clients can dynamically adjust their sending rate and resolution. It is pretty easy to downgrade your video when not talking. Its also possible to number and label the encrypted frames (I frames or B frames), allowing decimation for low bandwidth clients without recoding, which is expensive and slow. There are also ways to send additive resolution streams -- a base stream and additional detail layers (multiresolu…

Clients already do this yes, but to achieve the reliability that zoom is renowned for you also need to dynamically adjust what is sent _TO_ individual clients

Post by saiongole » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 2:06 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #41

fierarul wrote: post #18

How could they guarantee end-to-end if not all gadgets support encryption?! Let's demand end-to-end encryption for people connecting via FAX machines to read only the comments. Of course connecting via unreliable machines / protocols means Zoom must have some bridge on their side somewhere. In light of this post it looks like for the majority of users it is end-to-end encrypted. I don't even use Zoom, but really, the…

So don't claim you do end-to-end encryption? And don't put a green lock signifying end-to-end encryption in the client when you aren't actually doing end-to-end encryption? You act as if they're the innocent victim here. They literally made indicators and showcase them in the client to signify encryption when they aren't doing it. If you send your kids to school and the teacher says they're being fed everyday, but th…