250
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
250 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59276 readers
3575 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
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.
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.
My man, have you ever worked in tech support? I admire your optimism.
That's my day job and I'm good at it. 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?
I already made a one-line excessive tutorial in another comment. Feel free to link it.
Maybe when you share it, and explain, and be ready to support the millions of users, then we'll have e2ee. But even then we probably won't.
I already did.
I already did.
Of course. As I already explained, this sort of thing is my job. Millions of people signing support contracts with me: Awesome! I'll be creating so many jobs. Happy to expand into enterprise communication by offering Teamgram hosting services.
My comment was a sarcastic remark how hard it is to explain to millions of people how not to lose their data when they use e2ee.
If you are in the process of doing it - good job. But right now all out e2ee is for the enthusiasts only.
You should put it on tiktok and yt shorts, lol
Fair enough. I've met both good and bad users.
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.
So it's only three clicks, ergo easy.
I don't see the problem. The secret one has the lock icon to clearly mark it. There's no way one would accidentally pick the wrong chat. Delete the old, unencrypted one to be sure.
I agreed in another comment that there should be an "encrypted by default" option somewhere. I'm not claiming that it's perfect but the claim in the blog that it's super complicated is just not true. At least calls are P2P-encrypted by default.
Ah good point, gotta delete the old unencrypted chat too to avoid confusion. That’s definitely more than just 3 clicks.
Yeah I mean if you started one. If you went in with a secret chat in the first place then it wouldn't be an issue. And so it's one extra click vs. starting a normal chat. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you more than it's taken for all these replies.
If you’re talking to 30 people, it’s 90 clicks. It might be 3 clicks if you know where to look, but end of the day, even if you know where to find it, that’s still that many clicks times how many people you chat with. It’s not ideal. I wouldn’t say it’s complicated sure, but it’s not easy.
Uh, so? A "compose message" button is the approach many communication apps use, including e-mail. Don't get me started how many clicks it is to GPG-encrypt e-mails...
I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself that I agree on that part. You act as I would disagree. I don't. It could be better but it's also not a complicated nightmare as the blog author makes it out to be.
Right. But it’s also not exactly “easy” which is what you’re saying it is.
If easy was a sliding scale. Easy would be enabled by default. Hard would be making it obscure and hard to find. I would say it’s definitely closer to the harder to find side. But that’s just me. But 3 clicks, and having to switch chats and maybe delete the old one to avoid confusion, none of that is easy.
I said it's as easy as tapping the compose button and selecting secret chat. I nowhere claimed that it's easier than that but it's also not more complicated than that.
It’s 100% not just two clicks. You make it sound easier than it really is. But there’s no way for a new or infrequent user to know where it is unless they explore a bit or even knew to look for it. It’s hidden away behind a hamburger menu.
No, I gave a detailed tutorial how to initiate a secret chat and then explained that the procedure has to be done only once per contact. It's exactly as easy or complicated as I explained. Not more, not less.
No, it's not. Tap the pencil in the bottom right corner. That's how I explained it and that's how it's done. Hamburger menu is an additional way but the compose button is the pencil in the bottom right corner.
Maybe it’s different on Android or Desktop/Web. On iOS it’s more than 2 clicks. And it’s tucked away. It would be surprising to me if the UI is that inconsistent across different platforms. But I can’t know for sure. So I will defer to the subject matter experts on Telegram.
On iOS, you tap the profile, then tap “more”, then tap “start secret chat”. So depending on whether navigating to the profile counts, it’s also three taps. I agree it could be more direct, and should be included in the “New message” menu accessible from the pencil-on-paper icon in the top right of the main screen. I’ve used telegram on many platforms and the UI is in fact quite different. The iOS and android apps are totally different with different features, as are the Mac app, cross platform desktop app, and various web apps.
Why would it even be an option to have a non-encryted chat if the app can do encrypted?
It is not easy, as it's not even possible on desktop.