this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
132 points (95.8% liked)

Privacy

31252 readers
677 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Blog post by crypto professor Matthew Green, discussing what Telegram does (I wasn't familiar with it) and criticizing its cryptography. He says Telegram by default is not end-to-end encrypted. It does have an end-to-end "secret chat" feature, but it's a nuisance to activate and only works for two-person chats (not groups) where both people are online when the chat starts.

It still isn't clear to me why Telegram's founder was arrested. Green expresses some concern over that but doesn't give any details that weren't in the headlines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Are there any programs that can do e2e in a group chat? My limited knowledge of e2e and encryption makes me think that'd be extremely difficult and even clunkier

[–] polluteyourjorts@lemmy.one 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the metadata collection app for the NSA.

[–] kali@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't Signal's whole thing that they reduce metadata as much as they can? What do you recommend? Matrix and XMPP certainly aren't options if you value metadata protection.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The phone number is the most important piece of metadata, and collecting numbers of people who want to use e2ee and are willing to use an app that's inconvenient, then building graphs of these people and cross referencing the numbers with all the other data the government has is clearly valuable.

Whether other apps are better or worse in terms of collection of metadata is completely irrelevant when evaluating whether Signal itself is safe. However, as far as alternatives go Simplex https://simplex.chat/ seems to be one of the better options.

Even if no chat app protected metadata properly, that's still an important fact to acknowledge. Furthermore, it may be more important for people to protect their metadata from a specific government that has agency over them. If you live in US or a US protectorate, then data being leaked to the US government is your primary concern.

[–] kali@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, Signal has over 100 million downloads on the Play Store alone. Even on the odd chance those phone numbers do somehow end up in the hands of the NSA or whatever the chances of it actually relaying any real information about you is second to none.

Even then, you can't assume everyone who uses Signal wants to use e2ee explicitly. Some might just like the app's style, some might have family members who only use Signal, some might have an ethical problem with corporate apps but aren't computer-brained enough to know how SimpleX or Jabber or some other obscure alternative works.

Is the phone number requirement bad? Yes, absolutely. Does that instantly rule out all opportunity for it being a good app, privacy wise? Definitely not.

Further; privacy should be simple. Signal is designed to be as close to perfect as it can be without compromising too much privacy. They have decided that a phone number is necessary to prevent spam, and to combat the privacy implications of that they have chosen not to block temporary numbers for those who are more concerned.

Private chat apps are useless if noone knows how to use them. Signal tries to fix that, and I think they're doing a pretty good job even if it does have it's pitfalls.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think you missed the point there. The value for the NSA is in knowing which phone numbers communicate with other phone numbers which is precisely the metadata that Signal leaks. This allows you to build networks of users who are doing private communication. Next, you can cross reference the phone numbers with the data from Google, Meta, etc. and then if you see that one of them is a person of interest, then you immediately know the other people they talk to who are now also of interest.

The fact that people keep trying to downplay this is truly phenomenal to me. Once again, Signal is an app that uses a central server based in the US, that almost certainly shares data with the government. Anybody who minimally cares about their privacy should be concerned about this.

Signal is not an app that's private. Period. If you don't understand this then you don't understand what the term privacy means.

[–] kali@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Even then, you're jumping to the conclusion that

a) Signal sends this data to the NSA and b) Signal doesn't protect phone numbers in somr way

Neither of these do I care about enough to keep entertaining this conversation. Goodbye.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Assuming that data that can be leaked is being leaked is the only sensible thing to do if you care about privacy. Clearly this is too difficult a concept for you to wrap your head around.

Thanks for at least being honest that you don't actually care about privacy. Bye.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Assuming that data that can be leaked is being leaked is the only sensible thing to do if you care about privacy.

Aint this is the rule among cryptography types anyway?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

Right, and it's strange to me that such a fundamental rule is being ignored when it comes to Signal. All of a sudden people start making all kinds of excuses as to why it's not a problem in this case.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

which phone numbers communicate with other phone numbers which is precisely the metadata that Signal leaks.

Has this been confirmed? I had this theory before but got told this ain't true...

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If the metadata is being leaked then you have to assume it's being used in an adversarial way. Privacy can't be trust based. Either the protocol is secure and it guarantees that your metadata is private, or you're taking it on faith that people operating Signal servers are good actors and will never leak this data to anybody you wouldn't want them to.

Also worth noting that thanks to US laws, Signal would not even be allowed to say they're sharing data with the government even if they wanted to.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have no doubt that signal will turn over whatever they had but does they have the info about who is contacting who?

I was explained that they don't

Obvi all this shit is a trust me bro

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

As far as I know, nothing in the protocol prevents the server from connecting who is talking to whom. In fact, given that the phone number is how an account is identified, the server effectively has to do this in order to pass messages between people.

[–] kugmo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Element (really any Matrix client that supports e2ee) but rooms with hundreds I'd people and having encryption enabled is going to to have lots of messages with key exchange errors.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Group chat is a tricky problem and the modern crypto group (moderncrypto.org) talked about it at great length a few years back. I don't know whether any software exists that incorporates all those ideas, but that's mostly because I haven't really been looking for it.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There is the MLS standard now that was explicitly developed with e2ee group chat applications in mind. From what I have read so far, this new standard seems well regarded by cryptography experts.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks, I'll ask my crypto homies about it. I remember they were trying to handle some subtle problems.

MLS info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messaging_Layer_Security

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

PGP/GPG encryption. It works with any IM, social network, anything (at least if the platform/program/app/medium allows for sufficiently lengthy messages so to carry the encrypted payload). There are some IMs that bring PGP/GPG natively, as well as extensions for existing IMs that also adds PGP/GPG feature, but PGP/GPG doesn't need to be native to the app to convey encrypted messages, it's a base64 text. It's really an E2EE.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Messages app by Apple. Not extremely difficult, but has its trade offs, and easier when all devices share a CA.

[–] KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Doesn't the concept of using a CA (which are generally also central authorities) go against the idea of E2EE that only required to (or more) endpoints or am I missing something? Signal group messages (and the protocol/concept behind it) work without a CA. I think I'm missing something, can you connect the dots for me?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

The CA is purely a way to provide validation that the endpoints being connected are who they say they are; the actual signing certificates are still private. Apple uses a central directory; Signal depends on certificates linked to one way hashes of phone numbers.