253
Is Telegram really an encrypted messaging app?
(blog.cryptographyengineering.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
253 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
1848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
annoying != complicated
More steps required to perform something is very squarely within the definition of complicated, no matter how straightforward those steps are.
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.
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.
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.
Except for the locally stored data which is not encrypted and Signal's attitude is that device encryption is up to the user.
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.
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.
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.
So whether or not the messages can be retrieved by criminals or law enforcement is not a metric. Got it!
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.
You can enable secret chat. Like press the button. But that's probably too difficult compared to encrypting you devices.
Sure, but what happens when my contacts forget to push it and send me confidential information? I can be the most careful person in the world and always press that button, but I cannot control what others do. That's why it needs to be E2EE for everyone.
Encrypted from your girlfriend or yourself if you forgot your gesture, but not from Google/Apple/Government or anyone who actually wants your data.
I'd like to see them try. I use GrapheneOS, and it reboots after a period of inactivity, so the decryption keys aren't even loaded into memory unless I've used my phone recently. There are also constitutional protections so the government can't take my data without my permission, or with a warrant (if they can break the encryption, that is).
Even your average smartphone w/o any special setup is encrypted by default, though a lot of people use pretty awful security (i.e. only biometrics, and police can unlock your device with your biometrics violating your right to not self-incriminate).
It would be nice if Signal stored my data encrypted, but my devices are already encrypted (phone, desktop, and laptop), are usually in my possession, and have extra layers of protection on top to prevent stealing my data. So I'm a lot more comfortable with "unencrypted" data at rest than the chance that a contact will send me an unencrypted, sensitive message. I can mitigate the former, I can't do anything about the latter.
Is it more complicated to achieve than in other e2ee messengers? Yes, thus saying it is complicated is justified.
They’ve implemented it in such a way that you only have access to an encrypted chat on a single device, so no syncing between devices. Syncing E2EE chats across devices is more difficult to pull off, but it’s definitely possible and other services do that by default.
That's because if you are able to get your private key on another device, then Google, Apple or Microsoft, and that means anyone, also have access to your private key. And you don't have e2ee, literally.
I would look into how Matrix handles this, for example. It involves unique device keys, device verification from a trusted device, and cross-signing. It’s not just some private key that’s spread around to random new devices where you lose track of.
its some message for the users, having a secret chat kinda sounds bad, like doing something illegal and guilt trapping users into not using it
But then you couldn't get that juicy user and conversation data.
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.
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.
As I understand it, public groups use server side encryption (so not robust), but private chats use e2e encryption that is client side. (More robust)