end to end
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Can anyone clarify how legitimate, functioning and strong Whatsapp's end to end encryption security is?
Add: Does the encryption also encrypt media files?
>>54832893
It's not end to end encrypted. Use Signal instead.
>>54833027
But whatsapp recently collaborated with Open Whisper Systems, which in fact is the company that created Signal, to release its new end to end encryption.
>>54833120
Okay it's "end to end" but WhatsApp can read your messages like how Google hangouts is "end to end" but they can still read your messages. Signal is truly end to end, open source, and nobody but you and the person you're communicating with know whats being said.
>>54833156
Do you have any proof about WhatsApp reading messages?
Honestly curios, not trying to play devil's advocate
>>54832893
They used to havd only PMs text encrypted but now they claim to have encrypted everything including group chats.
If they are not lying at any point then it's pretty solid encryption.
Anyway, they claim to not have access to any messages you sent, and they actually were unable to provide any data to police. This is what really matter in terms of security and privacy, not that they could use some sneaky technique and cheat to everyone by datamining your conversation to target FB ads that you probably block anyway.
>>54833156
>Okay it's "end to end" but WhatsApp can read your messages like how Google hangouts is "end to end" but they can still read your messages.
[citation needed]
it's only end to end to observing parties
whatsapp can still read all your shit and they hold the encryption keys which means YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF YOUR DATA which means botnet.
>>54832893
it was cracked wide open like in 2 days since it was introduced
>>54833241
>>54833246
Any source/link?
>>54833255
you'll notice that these faggots will make a claim and not go to the trouble of giving the source right away. this is because they're desperate for you to pry more details out of them. if you're not begging them for more information, they feel worthless.
if someone's not willing to make a claim *and* provide some nominal reference to the facts being claimed, you should ignore them. these are shitty bad faith posters.
>>54833229
The burden of proof is on WhatsApp. They may use the OpenWhisper protocol, but WhatsApp is a closed source product developed by Facebook.
Do you honestly believe Facebook doesn't read your messages?
>>54833246
Give me legit sources of what you're claiming so that I can believe it's not bullshit.
>>54833305
Agreed.
>>54833318
Whatsapp is owned by Facebook. Not developed by it.
The development team is independent.
>>54832893
By the way. Any professionals here who actually read and studied the "white papers" whatsapp published explaining their encryption.
If so, then tell me whether it's actually something working or not.
>>54833477
>white papers
Can anyone recommend any book or something for learning modern encryption techniques? These papers are pretty interesting but I don't know any algorithms they are using.
>>54832893
Best-in-class - extremely strong end-to-end encryption that WhatsApp cannot break (or MiTM without being detected, now).
End-to-end uses the Signal protocol (Axolotl); transport encryption uses Trevor's Noise protocol - again, best-in-class (technically, better than Signal's own currently, although there's nothing wrong with the TLS Signal uses either, and Signal has the advantage of being open-source).
Media encryption is handled with a shared secret transmitted via Axolotl and the AES-256-GCM AEAD, and therefore has all the same end-to-end properties.
My hat is off to them; doubly so for rolling it out so widely by default. My only criticisms are that it is not open-source - I had to analyse the binary to confirm that it does do what the white paper says it does, but that is not guaranteed to be stable over updates - and that, of course, neither WhatsApp nor Signal protect metadata in any way, which is currently firmly in the category of "future research" anyway.
Naturally, as a phone messenger, neither meets everyone's needs. I did suggest usernames to Moxie, but he does believe normies use phone numbers easier, and getting strong encryption to the masses is job #1 right now. (I guess the follow-up task will eventually fall to my own project.)
Still, a solid 8/10 with no undisclosed flaws identified in my review.
>>54834287
Is it possible for them to add support for synchronized accounts on multiple devices?
>>54833318
>The burden of proof is on WhatsApp.
this
In the privacy world it's guilty until proved innocent
>>54833156
>It's not open source
>it must be evil
Ya know, dial-up is the only way to have a truly end-to-end encrypted long-range internet transmission. Stop using broadband and getting datamined and metamined by your ISP. Hell, you're probably already getting all your packets to/from 4chan logged, as part of their "high-threat" group for visiting this site. Why are you allowing this?
>>54834571
That would have to mean exporting and shipping keys between devices automatically, which is a fundamental breakage of "end to end".
>>54833676
cryptopals.com
>>54834789
I disagree. You can easily take “end” to mean “endpoint” in a more conceptual sense (rather than a physical sense).
Technically speaking, the endpoint is the user - not the device. It only has to be encrypted such that only the user is able to decrypt it (given their knowledge of some personal secret).
>>54833229
Just write something in sandnigger language and if your door gets kicked in 5 minutes later we now it's not truely end-to-end encrypted :ᶺ)
>>54834789
Even if its technically true, it doesn't mean anything.
People want end-to-end encryption to prevent anyone from decoding the messages except from you and the other person. If the fact that second phone can also decrypt it, it doesn't change anything since it's your device as well.
I also give them kudos for releasing good encryption to a wide audience and making it easy to use.
My only objection is that it is a centralized architecture, which makes it easy for the gov't to go to one server and get whatever they want.
Which is why I recommend XMPP as a superior alternative. It's an open protocol that's been around for a long time. It's decentralized, like email (you can run your own server if you want, no single central server required -- but you don't have to, there are servers you can sign up on like calyxinstitute to get started). With Off The Record (OTR) you have end to end encryption. And by using it over TOR, you also have anonymity and reduce threat surface of traffic analysis.
Luckily there is an easy to use client that includes all these features, and has clients for Android and iOS. ChatSecure. And plenty of clients for GNU/Linux and PC such as Pidgin. I've even got my normie friends installing it now. Join us.
How can I decrypt my old whatsapp archives?
>>54832893
>Owned by Jewbook
>Probably has been backdoored more times than Sasha Grey
>Worried about encryption
K E K
>>54835065
>trying to fit in so hard
>>54834958
why is chatsecure no longer on fdroid
conversations is just as good anyways
>>54835097
???
>>54835110
That raised red flags with me as well. Apparently the creators of ChatSecure (Guardian) decided that the developer key model of FDroid was somehow insecure. And so they've decided to release it through Play Store only.
I'm currently in the process of de-Googlefying, so I'm not sure what I will do after I remove all Google services from my phone. I suppose I will have to build ChatSecure from source at that point.
>>54835110
I just looked and ChatSecure is actually available on FDroid. Perhaps someone other than Guardian has compiled and put it on there?
Does Conversations work through TOR?
At any rate, multiple client options is a good thing, and one of the pluses of an open protocol.
>>54833447
So was Oculus.
And look what they're doing there.
>>54835239
>I just looked and ChatSecure is actually available on FDroid.
Cause you probably have the guardian project repo enabled, it's not available by default.
Yeah conversations got orbot support too.
>>54835395
Yep you are right. I had forgotten all about that. Must have done so in anticipation of eventually not having Play Services available.
>>54832893
Chat with someone about a terrorist attack you're planning. If the feds show up at your door it's not e2e.
>>54835549
funny but also probably true.
>>54835549
They won't, even if it's not e2e and facebook datamine everything. It would completely ruin all this PR they are making whole this time.
>>54833120
WhatsApp is owned by Facebook so if the government wants to see what messages you sent Facebook will a
Gladly hand them over
>>54836768
>if the government wants to see what messages you sent Facebook will a Gladly hand them over
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/02/world/whatsapp-suspended-brazil/
>>54836873
He means the US government you dumb hue hue piece of shit, of course whatsapp isn't gonna give any info to a south american leftist government and by the way the case that provoked that was a legitimate pedo case.
>>54836997
>there is no country other than US and Brazil
Did you realized that if they ever provide data to US goverment it will ruin whole PR they are building all this time? These things can be very damaging to whole product and it's the reason why facebook, google and other companies publicly admit they can and have to provide data to goverment.
>>54837049
are you stupid? of course they provide info to the US government by warrant, the PR would be worse if word gets to the american public that they didn't help catch a pedo.
>>54837283
Well, then we are waiting until they do it.
I live in europe so I don't give a fuck.
>>54837356
I haven't been in Europe for ten years. What do people use as IM in general?
In the USA most people above the age of 20 use facebook. Hookups on kik messenger between 20 and 30 years of age, snapchat for anyone below 18.
>>54837462
All my savvy friends use Whatsapp and most normalfags use facebook. More social teenagers use snapchat too. Old people use skype.
I've never heard that anyone use kik and others.
>>54834287
I see. Thanks for your explanation.
>>54832893
>Can anyone clarify how legitimate, functioning and strong Whatsapp's end to end encryption security is?
No, no one can clarify that as it's closed source program.
>>54837819
Go up. Someone analyzed the binaries to confirm it.
Since it's closed-source.
>>54834571
Potentially possible - Signal does it by simply asking parties to encrypt things to multiple keys (binding them together cryptographically first). I am not sure if WhatsApp implemented that, however.
>>54834958
The Brazilian courts (as they were recently) didn't seem to have a whole lot of luck going to them. But your point is sound, depending on whether they could be ordered to backdoor things (still an open question - currently no, but several governments want to try to force the issue).
XMPP is still centralized, just federated. It is a pity that Moxie is uninterested in even the concept of federation.
Axolotl is superior to OTR, but OTR does do the job OK in practice (I'm not wild about the implementation, but see Matt Green's bet - it survived better than we thought it would). Using OTR over Tor helps a little bit - although that kind of low-bandwidth, low-latency synchronised messaging is the exact kind of thing that Tor is not well-equipped to protect from global (or near-global) passive attackers like GCHQ or NSA. A stronger form of mixnet than onion/garlic routing is required for that, and it is an open research problem how to minimise latency to an acceptable degree whilst still maximising the anonymity set as much as possible, without floodfills.
>>54836768
WhatsApp is evidently operated as an entirely separate subsidiary of Facebook. They have definitely not been as helpful.
>>54837819
It is entirely possible to analyse binaries. It's just unnecessarily annoying. >>54837462 seems to have a finger on the pulse as far as teen usage of 'hip' messengers goes.
>>54833676
Oh, I missed you, sorry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm is a good starting point; for the Noise protocol framework I can point you to the official site, https://noiseprotocol.org/ - if you wanted info about Curve25519, I participated in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7748 which describes it (djb's paper is also helpful). Anything else?
>>54837283
> thinks they need a warrant
You may want to inform yourself about National Security Letters
>>54837462
>Nice forum sliding and attempt to redirect people to insecure alternatives by way of appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy).
NSA pls go
>>54838018
I assume you're the person who has been explaining the entire security thing with the long replies in this thread.
Thanks for that. Your input has clarified my doubt to a great extent.
So, as per your sayings, whatsapp's end to end encryption works just like it claims to do, although any backdoor activity requested my government or law enforcement entities are not confirmed yet (and if it did get confirmation, the entire end-to-end logic whatsapp claims to have obtained will be a huge fallacy).
How much will you rate whatsapp in terms of privacy strength and is it on par with Signal?
>>54839247
Oh and, op here:
Don't mind me asking, but are you some sort of IT professional or something similar?
>>54839289
I am a retired, cranky reverse-engineer. I have worked on a few projects, including anonymity systems. I participated in (is "helped" the right word?) the IRTF CFRG.
Please don't blindly trust my results; seek to reproduce them if you can, as you'll probably be analysing a slightly later version than the one I did and, well, more eyes actually looking tends to help. (There's probably something better than dexdump, but truthfully I can't really be arsed to find out anymore.)
Or you should use Signal. I actually trust Signal (it's my 9/10 - I'm picky and I don't give 10 easily), but WhatsApp is OK.
>>54839247
Yes, also me. (Tripcoding feels weird on this imageboard, and imperfect. I usually just anon.)
That's correct, yes, it seems to do just what it says on the tin (based on the curious analysis I did - I'm only human but I know this particular protocol well).
I analysed the Android version myself; I have heard the iOS version is comparable but did not analyse it personally. I can't confirm if everyone gets the same binary (they don't seem to have reproducible builds), but I matched class hashes with a couple of representative samples. Comparing fingerprints would defeat MiTM, just like in Signal (the earlier, incomplete Axolotl implementation didn't expose the fingerprints).
I can't confirm it'll stay doing what it claimed to do forever, because I certainly don't plan on reanalysing it on every update (very boring; my curiosity was satiated). I have a reasonably good-faith belief the engineers who worked on it will not willingly backdoor it in the future, but I don't have a crystal ball and I do not know what the future holds, or what they would truly do under duress.
That's not as much comfort as Signal has, with open source and reproducible builds - hence the 8/10 - but I don't think WhatsApp tried this hard to get it right only to fuck it up, especially since they took the trouble to implement Noise.
>>54840418
Thanks for making me understand, anon.
I used to use signal, but media files, especially videos tended to take a huge time to download. (I generally share road-trip videos with my family back in my former country.)
That's why I dumped it.
If only that was alright, I would have still used signal.
