then - like in a lot of other fields - it depends on your threat model.
Point is:
If your life or anything valuable really depends on provably strong encryption: you probably shouldn't use Telegram.
My rule for WhatsApp (one of his recommendations) however is even simpler: I don't use it if I can avoid it.
You should treat Telegram the same way you treat AOL Instant Messenger. If you have friends on AOL IM, by all means use it to organize which bar you're going to meet up in tonight. But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger. Telegram is deeply unserious about security.
For all intents and purposes that is what most of us do. We share photos of smiling kids and messy homes.
But don't ever kid yourself that it's a secure messenger.
Totally fine. I already don't trust Telegrams crypto.
I'm not saying it is secure, only it works really really well and isn't owned by a known evil entity who for some reason found it worth to pay 19B just to destroy the best messenger app I knew :-)
Also remember: WhatsApp didn't have very good crypto before they changed their protocol.
Isn't owned by a known evil entity? I think jury is still out on that. https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/
I try to get people to use Signal when I can but so many people already use WhatsApp and that counts for something too.
In theory telegram is insecure because it doesn't follow the best tried standards in security even though no viable attack have been made.
In theory whatsapp is secure because the last time a third party audited the source code no gross infringements existed.
Almost every chat app is insecure next to signal but indeed the only merit of whatsapp is that it's popular in some countries.
whatsapp has a fairly impressive set of merits that check lots of points for people who actually do security work:
- uses a known and vetted protocol
- protocol was implemented with help from known and competent security professionals
- is supported by one of the most resourced and competent private security teams on the planet
- is easy to drive uptake and has impressive network effects
Its major drawback is that it shares metadata with facebook. This may or may not be a big deal to individual users, but on the balance its fairly easy to see why people recommend it.
The closed source thing is largely not a consideration that comes up when you talk with professional security folks, and is a pretty obvious red herring when you think about it.
[note: i'm not a security folk, but i have drinks with them occasionally. I don't use whatsapp or telegram and only very occasionally use signal]
>even though no viable attack have been made.
All of these references to "in theory" obscure what's actually going on here. Signal is well known to be extremely secure and the code is well-audited. Moxie is a man of integrity and says that WhatsApp is similarly safe.
That's worth a lot more than the statement that no viable attack against Telegram has been demonstrated. That's true of every system until it's not. Once you reach that point, you've already failed. If that's the best proof you can give of a system's security, you've failed as a security communicator.
I gather that there are enough experts in this sort of thing that aren't convinced that it seems fair to say it's insecure.
Ex: If someone built a bridge, but wasn't an actual engineer, I would assume the bridge was unsafe. I don't need an engineer to actually inspect the bridge before I make that assumption, and I would probably tell everyone I knew not to use that bridge.