edit: A new tweet referencing the article: "WikiLeaks release said CIA managed to bypass encryption in mobile apps by compromising the entire phone"
I think a lot of people in this thread are hating on NYTimes today for this headline because of the inaccurate WhatsApp encryption news stories of recent.
I could see myself being bothered if they had written that the encryption was "broken" or "cracked" as if you destroyed the boulder in your path. Bypass seems fine. Hacker News doesn't normally use bypass as a synonym for break, but for some reason today it i to the commentators
More because we're all getting blown up with "Signal is broken" messages and have to answer them one by one because of misleading/disingenuous headlines. Yes, 'bypass' is technically correct but the implication of the headline is that the problem lies with the named apps. This is not true and actively problematic.
The current title [0] is wrong, but NYTimes is relatively clear:
> Among other disclosures that, if confirmed, would rock the technology world, the WikiLeaks release said that the C.I.A. and allied intelligence services had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect “audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.”
It depends on how you define "bypass". In my opinion, accessing data before encryption is a form of bypassing... but it doesn't necessarily mean they can decrypt an already encrypted signal.
[0] "WikiLeaks: CIA managed to bypass encryption on popular services Signal, WhatsApp " as of this writing