No.795
no. Signal is infinitely better.
No.797
You should switch to Matrix instead.
No.799
it's all that we have and all that we need
No.800
The universal opinion that I've encountered seems to be complete disagreement over which chat/messenger is the best tool to use based on various constraints. You just saw this happen in this thread with the 3 replies above me all recommending different things.
Note the one thing they agree on though, despite the many disparate recommendations. They all think telegram is soykaf. Which is true, don't use telegram, use literally any other thing.
No.805
>>794>Is Telegram secure?You might as well use Skype.
No.806
>>794Wire
Signal
Email + PGP
XMPP + OTR/OMEMO
Matrix
Ricochet
Whatsapp
Skype
Vibre
Telegram
LINE
Facebook Messenger
No.814
>>807True.
If you want to get friends on a secure platform don't make Signal your first choice. It's centralized and has acted dubiously in the past.>>807
No.817
Telegram has various problems. The main 2 are that a normal chat with a person is not encrypted, you have to use the 'secure' chat feature (why it's not standard is beyond me).
the 2nd is that Telegram made their own encryption standard without any serious cryptographers involved which should raise red flags. Then they're very secret about how it works and don't follow Kerckhoffs's principle.
I use Telegram for group chats but I use it the same way I use Twitter. I assume that everything I post there is public knowledge.
for secure communication I would recommend Wire or Signal.
No.819
>>817>The main 2 are that a normal chat with a person is not encrypted, you have to use the 'secure' chat feature (why it's not standard is beyond me).Don't forget about not being able to use E2EE in Telegram desktop chats at all, for a BS local-storage reason that I don't buy whatsoever. If Wire can manage to do it, others can manage to do it too.
I think it really says something about Telegram's owners and developers when they have even worse default privacy than Facebook-owned Whatsapp. Though admittedly I am making an assumption about Whatsapp lacking backdoors, which is by no means certain.
No.820
>>806>>807IRC doesn't get enough love.
No.821
>>814signal is the only one where I sometimes meet people in meatspace who already use it. So it's the one I recommend because the network effect is a big deal, and the point is to get normal people using secure comms not necessarily to plan terrorist actions.
No.824
>>820I like IRC, but it's unencrypted and all goes threw a central server which can read your messages.
No.826
>>824IRC is my canonical example of a protocol that is fundamentally unsalvageable. Just like classic SMTP, it makes horribly outdated assumptions about trust. Retrofitted security improvements come at the cost of buggy, flaky bolted-on code that doesn't really solve the underlying issues.
No.831
>>826>unsalvageableI like your definition. Oddly resilient. Take out the odd part and it'd make sense to the techo hippies. Or leave as it and let it to the punks.
No.841
>>831It would be fine if tor wasn't derezzed, but nearly across the board tor/SSL are all derezzed or improperly configured. Done right it is great, done poorly it is just all garbage.
No.864
>>854I'd love to get an account but I have no one who can vouch for me ;_;
No.1005
It is not "that secure". However it heavily depends on what do you need messenger for. Do you want to communicate with your rl-acquaintances or cypherfreaks?
