@cr0n0s I think this would be a lot more impactful if it was accurate. like FB is it's own cloud provider, and they don't sell to advertisers they do the reverse trick. The problems they have are different (and arguably worse)

@rekh127 exactly, the traffic generated by being your own ISP is intense and complicated, which makes this issue a huge ball of security problems

@cr0n0s oh I just saw the artidle I thought it was just the picture oops

@cr0n0s Nice #Telegram image. But I think they are not too far behind. I will stick with #Signal


Telegram: "tell your family and friends about our platform"

Also Telegram: "we fucked something"


@cr0n0s the beginning of the article is bad, however: everywhere will be vulnerabilities. It's not that bad of a company that they are there, but that/how they will be fixed.

@rugk ff course, but remember that it is more the personal opinion, of Pavel, than a technical article. So it's understandable

@cr0n0s whatever, it should still be technically correct/notice that vulnerabilities exist everywhere.

@cr0n0s arrgh, it continues…

"In almost 6 years of its existence, Telegram didn’t have any major data leak or security flaw of the kind WhatsApp demonstrates every few months."

Yeah, well, nice. If you have by default non e2e-encrypted chats whatsoever and pretty crappy self-made encryption no one can audit, then that's not a wonder.
Again: Countings vuln. makes no sense and is no indicator for security… πŸ™„

…but ah, I should have seen that earlier. This is a promotion article for Telegram.

@cr0n0s well yeah, ads are not technical yes 😜

@rugk ff course, as linus does, with your nvidia, fuck you! ; Pavel's point is to look for just that debate, 100% security does not exist and if we add unfriendly features against privacy worse.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!