[NayamAmarshe]

You'd be right, if you had any proof of WhatsApp being E2EE in the traditional sense.

You're using obfuscated closed source binaries from the biggest behaviour manipulation corporation on the planet.

Telegram is none of that. The security is robust and the features and services are much better.

[_8ysf]

> You'd be right, if you had any proof of WhatsApp being E2EE in the traditional sense.

Fair point. Though last time I checked Telegram, nothing except the secret chats was end-to-end encrypted. So there I know that the features people like on Telegram are definitely not E2EE.

> The security is robust and the features and services are much better.

Features and services, I can accept that. Security... well again, only the secret chats are E2EE, and last time I checked, the secret chats didn't have more features than Signal.

[NayamAmarshe]

> Features and services, I can accept that. Security... well again, only the secret chats are E2EE, and last time I checked, the secret chats didn't have more features than Signal.

That doesn't mean they're in plain text. MTProto 2.0 is an audited and robust algorithm.

E2EE's cloud sync support is not very good, which is why Telegram doesn't use it because Cloud Sync is one of the best features of Telegram.

You can read more about the algorithm here: https://core.telegram.org/mtproto

[_8ysf]

> That doesn't mean they're in plain text. MTProto 2.0 is an audited and robust algorithm.

Nope, but it means that they are not E2EE. Meaning that the Telegram server (and whoever has access to it) has plaintext access to the messages.

[NayamAmarshe]

> Meaning that the Telegram server (and whoever has access to it) has plaintext access to the messages.

No, that's not really true. They use a distributed key generation system. The keys are stored in multiple jurisdictions. No telegram employee or government can decrypt the messages. All the servers would have to be compromised to reach that 'plaintext access' that you mentioned.