This is an article written by telegram’s founder and CEO Pavel Durov in 2019 on “Why whatsapp will never be secure”. Your thoughts?

    • Nutomic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That paper is eight years old and yet there has been no major hack of the Telegram protocol.

    • Clot@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I am not talking about mtproto lmao. I was talking about their opt-in e2ee feature. Edit: Also the research you shared is based on mtproto 1.0 which telegram abandoned almost a decade ago and there have been No such defects found in mtproto 2 yet.

      • Dehydrated@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        MTProto is what Telegram uses for “Secret Chats”, their opt-in end-to-end encryption. Normal messages aren’t encrypted at all. They’re stored in plain text on Telegram servers. The fact that E2EE is opt-in already makes this app ridiculous. On top of that, it isn’t even secure or private lol

        • Clot@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          the fact that E2EE is opt-in already makes this app ridiculous

          in matter of privacy, yes. But it have cool features so.

          They’re stored in plain text on Telegram servers

          No, non secret chats use mptroto but with different schema, thats not plain servers. And no data breach have been reported in telegram yet if it was “that” easy to breach them. From my last comment: “Also the research you shared is based on mtproto 1.0 which telegram abandoned almost a decade ago and there have been No such defects found in mtproto 2 yet.”

          • Undertaker@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it have [sic!] cool features so.

            So what? If minimum requirements are not given, it can be as cool as possible. Only not so smart people think that’s a good deal.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that UX makes it a hard sell to non-tech/privacy folks.

          I had a few converts, then they pulled SMS. My converts left.

          Telegram has its problems, I completely agree the encryption issue is problematic. But how do you get non-tech people to use a tool like this when to have a new device get the history, or signing into multiple devices simultaneously, requires transmitting an encryption key? I really don’t know.

          I know SimpleX is working on this very issue - their current approach requires switching between active devices by scanning a QR code (or sharing code between devices out-of-band). So currently only one device can be active with your credsntials/ID. It has an ok UI, I’d say slightly better than Signal. But it’s security and privacy are just about the best I’ve seen.

          This seems to be the big hurdle - people want a simple login, most don’t care if their convos are stored in servers iut means they can just login.

          I’m using telegram with a few people for just this reason, since it gets us off SMS. They like that they can use whatever device is in front of them.

          Getting people to switch to Telegram is far easier than anything else, since it’s UI is much better than Signal, Wire, XMPP clients (which can be some of the best).

          We know exactly how bad Whatsapp is from a privacy standpoint - I’d choose telegram over it any day.