[lern_too_spel]

> Oh, come on, that’s not the same thing at all. Here Zoom actively decrypts the stream so that it’s compatible with non-Zoom clients and then advertises it as end-to-end

I took issue with a specific definition that precludes both products. I didn't say that both products use the same protocol.

> you’re comparing it to (outdated, FYI) information

Has the implementation changed in any way that makes it meet the definition? No? Then the information is not outdated for our purposes.

[saagarjha]

> I took issue with a specific definition that precludes both products.

This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to compare Zoom and iMessage; it’s just that I chose this one to respond to.

[lern_too_spel]

Have I made a false comparison anywhere else, or was the comparison valid as in this case?

[saagarjha]

You keep drawing parallels between Zoom's end-to-end encryption and iMessage's, when there really is little to compare. iMessage is end-to-end encrypted because intermediaries do not have access to decryption keys; your "attack" relies on a malicious actor tampering with key distribution using a technique that requires even more setup than is described in the old article you've linked. On the other hand, Zoom has been actually decrypting traffic as a key part of their service and yet called it end-to-end.

[lern_too_spel]

> You keep drawing parallels between Zoom's end-to-end encryption and iMessage's, when there really is little to compare

Once again, in none of my comparisons have I said they are doing the same thing. Please point to a specific comment I have made that you think is misleading.