253
Is Telegram really an encrypted messaging app? (blog.cryptographyengineering.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 151 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No.

As a kind of a weird bonus, activating end-to-end encryption in Telegram is oddly difficult for non-expert users to actually do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    As a kind of a weird bonus, activating end-to-end encryption in Telegram is oddly difficult for non-expert users to actually do.

    No, it's not. It's very easy. In the bottom right corner there is a pencil button to compose a new message and right there it asks which tpye of chat to start. Secret chat is the second topmost option after group chat. Really not hidden or complicated at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    It should be a setting to always use encrypted chat, and it should probably prompt you when you first login.

    Better yet, don't have an option to not have encrypted chats. I don't see a reason to not have everything E2EE all the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    It should be a setting to always use encrypted chat, and it should probably prompt you when you first login.

    I don't disagree but the claim that you quoted was that it's complicated to initiate and as I explained it's not. Also secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If you have to enable it every time, it's complicated enough that most people won't bother. Maybe they'll do it once or twice out of novelty, but it's not going to become a habit.

    I only consider something "encrypted" if it's actually encrypted by default, or at least prompts to enable it permanently on first launch. Otherwise, it's not an "encrypted" chat, it just has the option to have some chats encrypted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you have to enable it every time, it’s complicated

    But you don't. As I already explained: secret chats stay in the messages list, so you can go back to an initiated secret chat and pick up there without any additional fiddling.

    I have plenty of encrypted chats that I don't have to enable every time I want to send one. I don't understand where this misconception comes from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Surely you talk to more than one or two people, no? If you have to manually check a box or something every time you start a new message with someone, people are going to stop doing it.

    It's not an encrypted chat app. It's an unencrypted chat app that has an option for encrypted chats. Whether something is encrypted or not depends on how most people use it and what the defaults are.

    Signal is an encrypted chat app. E2EE is the default and AFAIK only behavior. Telegram can be encrypted, but it's not by default, and defaults matter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Surely you talk to more than one or two people, no? If you have to manually check a box or something every time you start a new message with someone, people are going to stop doing it.

    Maybe you get acquainted to 100 new people every day, so your day is a constant chore of starting secret chats all the time. I don't. I doubt regular people do. Just start the secret chat once and then pick it up later.

    Signal is an encrypted chat app.

    Except for the locally stored data which is not encrypted and Signal's attitude is that device encryption is up to the user.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    True, device encryption should be up to the user. Mine is encrypted, and most smartphones have encrypted storage these days. I actually have mine reboot after a period of inactivity, which removes the encryption keys from memory.

    That said, they should have an option for app data encryption, but that's hardly a requirement IMO, because I care far more about data being encrypted in transit than at rest on my devices. I can encrypt data at rest on my machines, I can't encrypt data in-transit unless that's baked in to the service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That said, they should have an option for app data encryption, but that’s hardly a requirement IMO

    So Telegram is not an encrypted messenger because there are types of messages that are not E2E encrypted but Signal is a encrypted messenger because encrypting local storage is optional. Got it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yes, because the "encrypted messenger" metric is about sending and receiving messages, not storing messages. On the order of things I care about, E2EE is much more important than local storage. I can do something about local storage, I can't realistically do anything about E2EE.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, because the “encrypted messenger” metric is about sending and receiving messages, not storing messages.

    So whether or not the messages can be retrieved by criminals or law enforcement is not a metric. Got it!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Law enforcement would require a warrant, and criminals would need to break into my device first (highly unlikely without it being a targeted attack, and that's not in my threat model at all).

    And if they can break the encryption on my devices, they can likely break the encryption of the data at rest. Most people would probably use the same key for both anyway (biometrics or a PIN). If I need it to be more secure, I can create a special encrypted container for that service to store its data in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't see a reason to not have everything E2EE all the time.

    You probably didn't ever meet non-IT person(or most of the IT people). To use e2ee means you need to keep your private key close and safe. 99.999% people can't do that. So when they lost their key their conversation history is gone and it's your fault not theirs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Signal does this by having your data be unencrypted at rest on your device, and I think that's a reasonable tradeoff because it protects the most import part: data in transit. Or you can be like Matrix and require/strongly encourage setting up multiple clients so you always have a fallback (e.g. desktop and phone). There are reasonable technical solutions to the problem of making an E2EE chat system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My man, have you ever worked in tech support? I admire your optimism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's my day job and I'm good at it. People understand when I explain three clicks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People understand when I explain three clicks.

    This is the problem. You have to explain it. Feel like talking to several million people to get them to use it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    It’s three clicks. And it opens a separate chat from the existing one. It’s obscure enough that you could say the UX deprioritizes (which at best is not an actively malicious design choice) usage of end-to-end encryption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (11 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why would it even be an option to have a non-encryted chat if the app can do encrypted?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Telegram isn't made to be a full E2EE messenger. They have things like public channels which you can't do with E2EE. What kind of idiots thought that Telegram was intended to be a fully E2EE messenger? People use it cause it is native and good for its purposes. It has secret chats if you need them at times. Why all the hate from the Signal CIA fanbois?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The author makes the point that Telegram advertises itself as secure, but isn't except a hidden out of the way option that almost nobody will use.

    The truth of the matter is Telegram has the full plaintext content of almost every message posted on that site.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    so make 1to1 conversation e2ee by default, what would be the downsite? Only one i can think of is they want to snoop in peoples convos.

    im fine with public channels not being encrypted, thats fair.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Encryption is part of defense strategy, otherwise it's like a steel door in a house with wall panels made of paper.

    That strategy involves all communications being encrypted. Otherwise rubber hose cryptanalysis becomes practical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent