• quaff@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah, the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better recognized than the one used in Telegram. But the lack of on-by-default or the need to drill in a few options before enabling secret chats… I mean it’s even named the same thing as Telegram.

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It doesn’t matter what Facebook or WhatsApp say they use, their source code is closed, you can’t prove their words, meaning they don’t have e2ee. You can with Signal, you can with Telegram.

        • quaff@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Telegram needs to enable e2ee by default, cause the way it is now, you may as well not have it.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better than the one used in Telegram.

        MTProto 2 has not been cracked. MTProto 1 had a weakness and Telegram addressed it. That was many years ago. I’m not aware that MTProto 2 has ever been cracked in all these years. Telegram’s unwillingness to cooperate with governments is an additional security layer.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          MTProto 2 has not been cracked.

          What’s important is that it hasn’t been confirmed good by actual normal cryptographers. It’s science, not school debates.

          Telegram’s unwillingness to cooperate with governments is an additional security layer.

          No person ever instructed in security would say something this childishly asinine!

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            What’s important is that it hasn’t been confirmed good by actual normal cryptographers.

            Why not?

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I dunno. It’s just not.

              Shows like “we have a reward to crack it, nobody’s done this, so we’re very cool” are not sufficient.

        • quaff@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          In my OP, I was merely referring to how FB Messenger and Telegram functions the same.

          Speaking to the protocol used for encryption is a moot point… because even if MTProto 2 was better, it’s still not enabled by default in both messengers.