While I trust Moxie more than I'd trust e.g. Personally I see metadata as more black-and-white thing, to hide it you need a lot more than just trustworthy server maintainer. As for WA, yeah I guess it boils down to whether or not the metadata it leaks is part of your threat model. At some point they might have to rewrite the entire protocol which might cause problems. The problem is however they're drowning in technical debt when it comes to implementing privacy preserving versions of each feature. Well, we can hope that as Signal gets more usable, Telegram devs feel pressure to start fixing their security. I'm saying when, because if is not a realistic scenario. That's very sensitive information.Ĭlaiming the servers are magically impervious to hackers creates a shit ton of pressure to NOT reveal an attack when it happens. 100% of metadata leaks, including the fact you've opted to use E2EE with specific users. If Telegram's servers are hacked, 100% of group chats leak. Telegram keeps your messages safe from hacker attacks. Why won't they tell things like how it is, if it's not a bad thing?ĮDIT: Furthermore, the front page also says Secure We use client-server encryption so we can at will access your messages If there's a third party with access to your private messages, they're not private. But it's just standard client-server encryption, which doesn't mean anything. Sure, they're not lying and saying Telegram's messages are end-to-end encrypted. But when the front page says " Telegram messages are heavily encrypted" that sort of gives the wrong vibe. Telegram is perfect for casual conversation, meme groups, and low-security communication when you don't want to support big corporate platforms. On Telegram there's a subset of secure features, they don't see security as a property of all features. Well Signal is catching up on features, and every feature deployed is a secure one.
0 kommentar(er)
