this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
64 points (90.0% liked)

Privacy

32108 readers
753 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

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi :) I know that Telegram is not save and not a good messenger if you are a privacy-geek. Sadly some parts of my family still think so. I brougth up the arguments, that they are cooperating with Russia, that they or closed-source on the server-side and that e2ee is not on by default and only available for 1-on-1 chats.

My question now is, if you gals and guys might have some other arguments or sources I could use.

I don't want to convince anyone to switch away from Telegram (because I am no missionary :D) I just want people to understand the risks of using Telegram.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

How about: Signal is better? Though, they recently were caught with some unencrypted shit on the desktop client.

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Sauce? I tried searching and couldn’t find anything (at least not on the first page of results). Thanks.

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 months ago

i think they mean that signal on desktop does not encrypt their content at rest, which is acknowledged and not an issue they are intending on addressing.

But it seems to have recently changed? I'm learning thus as I wanted to find a source.

Source: https://candid.technology/signal-encryption-key-flaw-desktop-app-fixed/

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lemmy thread and link.

Basically, anyone who can read your home directory could decrypt your Signal database. That's about typical of traditional desktop applications, but questionable for security-oriented software. Mac OS and (sometimes) Linux have more robust credential management options, and Signal signaled (yes, pun intended) its intent to adopt them.

[–] ChaoticCookie@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel that if someone can read your home directory, signal isn’t your worst worry. However, it’s still an issue and I’m glad they’re going to move to better security.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I'm inclined to agree, and said so in the linked thread.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Caught? It was like kinda obvious. You could always locate your Signal folder where everything is downloaded and just see all pictures...

I ignored this flaw as I kept my PC Luks encrypted, but a friend on Windows might not, where everyone with physical access could read everything.

So, yeah. I also dislike the idea that its not encrypted in some sort of way.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The messages in the desktop client aren't encrypted. However, someone would need access to your machine to get them

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, if the data were encrypted, the encryption key would have been on the Computer anyway, but yes it could have been better protected.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Technically they could require a password. However, people would forget it