[liberationtech] About Telegram

[Tony Arcieri]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Maxim Kammerer <mk at dee.su> wrote:

> Go ahead and describe an attack, then
>

That would be shifting the burden of proof. The goal of a well-designed
cryptosystem should be to demonstrate why attacks aren't possible. Just
because I personally can't demonstrate a particular attack against this
system is not a measure of its security.

Can you demonstrate a practical attack Moxie's obviously broken
cryptosystem described in his blog post? If you can't, does that mean it's
secure?


> Not using off-the-shelf components is not an argument, since the project is
> apparently not developed by some hobbyists learning about crypto.
>

Even experts make mistakes, and Telegram's developers are clearly not
experts as they seem to have ignored all of the developments that have
occurred in the past 20 years (or more) in cryptography, most notably
authenticated encryption.

-- 
Tony Arcieri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20140220/bb184288/attachment.html>