Secret chat about tdesktop HOT 128 CLOSED

Secret chats require offline message history and state storage, which is not done at the moment and is not in current plans. So even if they will be added it won't be very soon.

from tdesktop.

OK, thanks

from tdesktop.

People use Telegram because of its superior privacy in comparison to other IM clients, such as Whatsapp. Most of the users value Telegram's superior encryption and most likely the Secret Chat is the killer feature that could boost the adoption of the program among a much, much larger base.

from tdesktop.

I agree with @hanovra. Although a doubtable encryption, secret chats are the reason for me and most of my friends to use Telegram and to refrain from the Desktop clients, which are missing it.

from tdesktop.

@telegramdesktop you're losing users to some anonymous Russian guy with a closed source app for mac. He's implemented secret chats, and a bunch of other features. I'm still skeptical because it's closed source, so I would love it if TDesktop would get secret chat ASAP, it would stop me from switching, and allow me to convince my friends to use TDesktop instead of the Russian-made closed source app.

from tdesktop.

This is a showstopper for us

from tdesktop.

i also think this should be prioritized over most of the other stuff, secure chats its the most important difference between telegram and a lot of other messaging apps

from tdesktop.

+1. People need this feature. Secret chat is the main difference between telegram and other IM's (Skype, for example). It's the main purpose of all project "Telegram" – privacy. Secret chat is 200% privacy which is not available nowhere else.!

from tdesktop.

This feature must be realised, because security should be the major vector of development

from tdesktop.

I created a new request for this, sorry. I created #236
Why is this request closed?

from tdesktop.

closed because the author atm isn't interested to implement it.

from tdesktop.

I would love to get this feature too.

from tdesktop.

Everyone, I told about desktop telegram application did ask for the secret chat option, after they installed it. Still hoping for it.

from tdesktop.

So it sounds like one of the challenges for this is that a secret chat can only happen from one client to another and can't be synchronized across multiple clients. I'm fine with that! Even if a secret chat can only exist for the current session!

This is a great open source implementation. I would like to contribute. How can I help? I would prefer to discuss a plan instead of forking and doing my own thing.

from tdesktop.

Yeah, please add this feature. Most users agree that this is much more important than anything else.
I chose telegram mainly because of the desktop client AND the secret chat, and it's really a shame that i can't have both at the same time. I don't want to move to another app because except from that issue, telegram is just PERFECT; it works like a charm.

from tdesktop.

Could you, @telegramdesktop , reopen this issue, so new users don't make requests about secret chats, please? Thanks :)

from tdesktop.

I also think that secret chat should get the highest priority. I can't tell my friends that they have to use the commandline version (telegram-cli) for secret chats.

Thanks a lot.

from tdesktop.

Secret chats are currently implemented in the OS X client. Also they are implemented in telegram-purple and cutegram, other two telegram clients. And the telegram-cli for linux.

https://github.com/majn/telegram-purple
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/Cutegram

from tdesktop.

I have the OSX client, as does another user. Both of us are on 0.7.10. The other user has an option in the compose drop-down to make a secret chat; I don't. No idea what the issue is.

from tdesktop.

@jefferai There are two versions, the cross-platform Tdesktop which has no support for secret chat, and there's also the app store version which DOES have secret chat (but only works on OSX).

You're probably using tdesktop

from tdesktop.

Yeah.

from tdesktop.

@telegramdesktop :
with reference to #363
the author of tdesktop replied that "Secret chats are hold only on one client device and can't be synced between them and they stay more secure remaining on the mobile."

my reply>> So be it. Even if secret chats can be held only one client device without syncing, still with that limitation it will be great feature to have . Just show that limitation of "no syncing possible" as a warning message in-red-color above the secret chat window. Even then, Everybody is just dying to have this feature in TDesktop.
Also, When native OSX version client can have this feature, then why not TDesktop? The same refutation logic should apply to both the clients. It is also, supported by telegram-purple desktop client( see https://github.com/majn/telegram-purple ). Then why not the official client TDesktop?

IMHO, this is the topmost requested feature in around my all known users group. If this secret chat functionality in TDesktop comes , then telegram popularity will beat whatsapp,snapchat in "very very short time". This should be prioritized above any other feature request, in my humble opinion. It will be very easy for "us" to push/evangelize/dictate usage of telegram to a large number of users due to TDesktop secret chat support.

from tdesktop.

also note that the (unofficial) client "for linux" - cutegram also supports secret chat
see http://aseman.co/en/products/cutegram/

It would be really really great if we have some client for MS-Windows too , which supports secret chat

from tdesktop.

http://aseman.co/en/products/cutegram/
Multiplatform client with secure chat

from tdesktop.

I have already mentioned this third party telegram client "cutegram" with support for secret chat.
I do not know that when "third party apps" can implement this, then why "official client" can not implement this heavily requested/waited feature?
The whole single point benefit of "telegram" over "whatsapp" for the end user is secret chat, otherwise there are infinite number of apps (like viber/line/yahoo messenger/G+ hangout/Facebook messenger/piip.com/xms.me/ ....etc etc ) for chatting. Hence, among this crowd Telegram LLC needs to take this secret chat demand (on desktop official client) very seriously, as this is their major USP (except snapchat) .

from tdesktop.

You are absolutely right zaxebo !
cutegram is full of features but seems a little buggy comparing to official application, i think they have a lot to do... but you are exactly right it does not make sens at all !
linux get more flexibility with pidgin plugin, also mac have a similar solution...
personally i don't like the feeling of the computer client, they are making same mistake as windows 8, "it's not a tablet !!! it's a pc !!!"
i just have one hope, the linux pidgin plugin released to windows, it's not yet the case... once we will get that we could use it in a nice way on windows like other chat client... (that plugin support secret chat)
at least it could be nice if we have secret chat on the web version also...
...
but let's be honest don't forget that the app is intended for phone at the first place, and it do his job, secret chat for computer would be awesome but... any way...

from tdesktop.

Hello,

I was about to use Telegram Desktop and expected it to support secret chats.

But then I noticed that it currently does not support secret chats.

That is extremely unfortunate.

Please add support for secret chats to Telegram Desktop and please make it a number one priority.

This is really needed IMHO (and apparently others seems to agree).

Could you please make it happen?

It would be much appreciated.

Regards

from tdesktop.

A lot of people it's expecting secret chats, I just keep wondering why it's not implemented as it's one of the most requested features.
And it's a core part of the telegram, which made me use it in the first place (and a lot of people I know).

from tdesktop.

Pretty bummed that there's no secret chats on the desktop app.. @telegramdesktop

from tdesktop.

+1

from tdesktop.

+1. taking into account that OS X telegram allows for secret chats.

from tdesktop.

@Turboexe It's different from this cross-platform version.

from tdesktop.

@caizixian sure, but I'm pretty sure that win/linux allows for the same network/crypt functionality as OS X does. may be implementations would differ for different operating systems but the programming community has lots of patterns to hide it inside.

from tdesktop.

Totally agree with you.

from tdesktop.

@Turboexe It's the key function and should be implemented asap.

from tdesktop.

Why does Tdesktop exist??? I will tell you that I downloaded a copy because web.telegram.org won't do secret chat. If Tdesktop doesn't do secret chat, then I will just use the web app instead. I'm very disappointed in the 'official' desktop app for this shortcoming! I was expecting to have new encryption keys on the desktop client and therefor would not be able to sync chats between phone and PC. That would be fine, and exactly what I want because the secret key on my phone should NEVER leave that device. The desktop client should be able to create and store some encryption keys that will never leave my desktop. I should be able to delete and create new keys at will.

from tdesktop.

Never seen such an insensitive project manager. Goodbye "telegram", hello "line". Why to keep two three messengers on my mobile and desktop . Atleast "line" can do voice calls too and hidden chat feature. Line also has desktop client. Already whatsapp has got voice calling too. Anyway, if secret chat does not come to desktop official app, i see no reason why telegram should occupy my diskspace.

If telegram management can not understand and be concerned about what one single feature community wants deeply, then hell with this project and hell with its insensitive management team. Ignore the users, and you are doomed. Goodbye forever.

from tdesktop.

Bump

from tdesktop.

Would a patch be accepted to add support for this?

I don't care about syncing for the moment, just the ability to do a secret chat from my desktop. It was quite surprising to start inviting people to use Telegram only to start getting complaints... "why can't we do secret chats when not on our phones?"

from tdesktop.

Following this closed issue
and
#118

i created a new issue to ask dev deeply about that otherwise i think i'll be looking for an other solution to real privacy concerned chat app...

The main dev seem concerned about privacy problem, and look trust-able regarding it's background, i can't understand why they ignore the main purpose

from tdesktop.

I agree! It's no problem that this feature wasn't implemented from the start. But the fact that the developers aren't even willing to look into it even though this is most probably the feature most asked for becomes more and more a deal breaker.

from tdesktop.

Actually, Secret chats aren't supposed to be transferred between clients.
It's because the encryption keys are device specific and one devices keys
can't decrypt another devices chats.

Q: How are secret chats different?

Secret chats are meant for people who want more secrecy than the average
fella. All messages in secret chats use end-to-end encryption. This means
only you and the recipient can read those messages — nobody else can
decipher them, including us here at Telegram. Messages cannot be forwarded
from secret chats. And when you delete messages on your side of the
conversation, the app on the other side of the secret chat will be ordered
to delete them as well.

You can order your messages, photos, videos and files to self-destruct
https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-how-do-self-destructing-messages-work in a
set amount of time after they have been read or opened by the recipient.
The message will then disappear from both your and your friend's devices.

All secret chats in Telegram are device-specific and are not part of the
Telegram cloud. This means, you can only access messages in a secret chat
from their device of origin.

https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Gabriel Bauman [email protected]
wrote:

Would a patch be accepted to add support for this?

I don't care about syncing for the moment, just the ability to do a secret
chat from my desktop. It was quite surprising to start inviting people to
use Telegram only to start getting complaints... "why can't we do secret
chats when not on our phones?"

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

Mike Adams [email protected]
Cell: 916.538.4013

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in
the opposite direction."
-Albert Einstein

from tdesktop.

Wouldn't it be possible to transfer private keys from one device to another? Like it is possible with PGP keys?

I see non-secret chats basically as a temporary solution until end-to-end encryption is implemented per default and end-to-end encrypted chats are accessible from every device (at least if the key is transfered manually). If Telegram doesn't work on this, I would finally switch to TextSecure as soon as their browser-based client is ready.

I think the Telegram team should consider a bit more what their "selling proposition" is here (even if they don't actually sell anything). Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger offer a significantly bigger user base. Messenger is accessible from basically every device and Whatsapp at least offers a browser-based client. So the cloud component isn't really a unique feature of Telegram (anymore).
Telegram's secret chats are not default and they are device-specific which means many people don't use them regularly or even don't use them at all. So, we can conclude that most messages sent with Telegram are not end-to-end encrypted and thereby not as secure and privacy friendly as most of us would like them to be. The only "unique" thing that Telegram offers at the moment is not belonging to Facebook which, if you ask me, is definitely not enough in the long run. People (and even the non tech savvy ones) are looking for an IM that finally offers a high level of usability and privacy and works cross-plattform. Currently, Telegram's chances would be very good to take that position if they would focus more on secret chats, especially their security and their usability. Instead, they introduce a bunch of new stickers every month or so...

from tdesktop.

The reason secure chats are not synced is that they do not exist on the
server. The messages are sent between specific devices via the telegram
servers, and then discarded. In order for them to be synced, the messages
would need to be stored on the telegram server indefinitely. Storing the
messages means they (telegram) can be ordered to hand them over to the
court for civil or criminal proceedings.

Additionally, if your private keys never leave your device, they can never
be intercepted and used to decrypt your private communications. I know it
seems overly paranoid, but isn't that kind of why you want secret chats in
the first place?

-Mike

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Mosrite [email protected] wrote:

Wouldn't it be possible to transfer private keys from one device to
another? Like it is possible with PGP keys?

I see non-secret chats basically as a temporary solution until end-to-end
encryption is implemented per default and end-to-end encrypted chats are
accessible from every device (at least if the key is transfered manually).
If Telegram doesn't work on this, I would finally switch to TextSecure as
soon as their browser-based client is ready.

I think the Telegram team should consider a bit more what their "selling
proposition" is here (even if they don't actually sell anything). Whatsapp
and Facebook Messenger offer a significantly bigger user base. Messenger is
accessible from basically every device and Whatsapp at least offers a
browser-based client. So the cloud component isn't really a unique feature
of Telegram (anymore).
Telegram's secret chats are not default and they are device-specific which
means many people don't use them regularly or even don't use them at all.
So, we can conclude that most messages sent with Telegram are not
end-to-end encrypted and thereby not as secure and privacy friendly as most
of us would like them to be. The only "unique" thing that Telegram offers
at the moment is not belonging to Facebook which, if you ask me, is
definitely not enough in the long run. People (and even the non tech savvy
ones) are looking for an IM that finally offers a high level of usability
and privacy that works cross-plattform. Currently, Telegram's chances would
be very good to take that position if they would focus more on secret
chats, especially their security and their usability. Instead, they
introduce a bunch of new stickers every month or so...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

Mike Adams [email protected]
Cell: 916.538.4013

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in
the opposite direction."
-Albert Einstein

from tdesktop.

If an organization really wants to read my messages and is powerful enough they just can. They could infiltrate my phone and read the unencrypted messages or steal the key.

For encrypted mails the system works pretty well: Encrypted messages are stored on servers but the server operators cannot read them due to the encryption. The messages can only be decrypted locally by the clients. As long as the users does everything correctly this is pretty secure. (OK, key management for PGP is a mess, but that's another story.)
I have to admit, I don't know whether it is possible to avoid meta data with this system. But: Why not use this "imperfect" but still end-to-end encrypted system for normal chats per default and leave the system that is currently called "secret chats" as additonal opt-in as it is right now?

I'm neither a programmer nor a crypto expert so I don't know which system would work for Telegram and which wouldn't. I'm just saying, technically, it is possible as e-mail uses it and I think XMPP+OTR does so, too.

And as most users have two or even three devices nowadays they most probably would want to keep them in sync. And they already can, e.g. by using Facebook messenger. So why bother using Telegram? This would only make sense if Telegram would offer something special, i.e. end-to-end-encryption that is easy to handle and enabled by default without exception.

from tdesktop.

This is not the real question secret chat does not need to be synced... how it work technically is not an issue, the fact is that the feature is not available on official windows client
other client that offer secret chat on computer work fine, and a secret chat stay where it get initiated (device)

from tdesktop.

@intika : even more the question is that one more official client of telegram on MacOSX only - supports secret chat .
But the generic official client written in Qt(for Win/Linux/Mac) does not supports secret chat. And they are giving weird logics for this. If Telegram LLC's one team can themselves implement it officially for MacOSX special client, then why not other team can implement it for Qt based offical client. They are running on the same protocol.
Its such a funny situation.
But you can not argue with dictators.

from tdesktop.

@zaxebo1 : they just wont do it
now when it's come to the real why... no one know
will see what the dev answer on #619

from tdesktop.

Sad. I guess the author won't read this thread any more. We may have to look for alternative clients.

from tdesktop.

+1
I genuinely do not understand how this is not a priority.
Unless you want to mess around with users data, there is no point at all of not implementing secure chats. Emoji improvements are nice, but I don't see how this has higher priority in a messaging app, which claims to be aimed at security.
Annoying and ignorant.

from tdesktop.

+1 as well. This really is very important

from tdesktop.

Any updates? It's one of the most important features of telegram, should have it on desktop! Thanks!

from tdesktop.

+1
Secret chats feature must be implemented asap.

from tdesktop.

+1 for secret chats.

Secret chats require offline message history and state storage, which is not done at the moment and is not in current plans

Regarding that, offline message caching might be useful (the last 100 or so messages for every contact/group chat is not much, storage-wise). Often enough I have slow Internet (mobile / public hotspot) and loading message history takes a while. Or if the Telegram servers are slow or down.

And even without offline message storage, you only need state for the mtproto keys I guess. If my secret chat vanishes as soon as I close Telegram, it might even be seen as a feature instead of a bug. Or you hide it behind a "enable beta features" button somewhere so that people don't use it without knowing it might do unexpected things.

from tdesktop.

+1

from tdesktop.

+1 this is ridiculous. i moved from skype & subrosa because of secret chat.

from tdesktop.

a must for me too +1

from tdesktop.

+1

from tdesktop.

I'm waiting for this feature too.

from tdesktop.

Not having secret chat on desktop clients seems absurd. There's no need to worry about syncing between desktop and mobile when secret chat is used. Just make it very clear to users that secret chat is tied to the device.

If you did want to sync secret chats, this is still possible. Just make the first Telegram client send secret chat messages in received to the user's other clients (it will mean syncing all of the user's public keys with all of the user's Telegram instances, but this shouldn't be a problem).

Even without sync, secret chat is the killer feature.

from tdesktop.

Don't get me wrong; Telegram is a solid messenger overall. Secret chat, however, is the entire reason why I and pretty much everyone else use it. We probably wouldn't have bothered trying it otherwise. I couldn't care less about having sync on secret chats. Sacrificing convenience for security and privacy is something everyone should understand by now.

from tdesktop.

The fact that the last comment was yesterday, ~9 months after this request was closed, should be an indicator of how badly this feature is wanted

from tdesktop.

Please, reopen this issue!!

from tdesktop.

@Marocco2 I dont think the owner of the project does look this issue, tho is one of the most ever wanted and requested features from the users of a program after the windows 8 start menu.

from tdesktop.

I perfectly agree, that secret chats are a must have for any Telegram implementation.

from tdesktop.

i tried cutegram for windows as somebody suggested. its an ok client but the official one is better. the problem with secret chats on desktop seems to be that mobile devices take priority. so i was unable to start a secret chat from my desktop client to my gf's desktop client. it would go to her phone instead. and if she started one from her desktop, it would go to my phone. so yeah some desktop clients like cutegram support desktop->mobile secret chats if the desktop client initiates the chat. but no desktop->desktop i dont think. for that, clients will need to somehow pick which session to start the chat with. just putting that there for whoever is interested

from tdesktop.

@berrythesoftwarecodeprogrammar :
It will be great, if you put your observation into cutegram's issues also.
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/Cutegram/issues
Probably someday cutegram may solve this too

from tdesktop.

I would love to have a true secret chat with my family

from tdesktop.

Is this only lacking in desktop or also in the app versions?

from tdesktop.

@gloeglm this only happens with this telegram implementation, and noone can understand why, mobile app supports scret chats

from tdesktop.

So if everybody is using the mobile app, a fully secure three-way chat is possible?

from tdesktop.

Nope @gloeglm, secret groups are not available

from tdesktop.

Ah, thats what I was asking - are there any plans for implementing that?

2015-09-02 19:16 GMT+02:00 Marcos [email protected]:

Nope @gloeglm https://github.com/gloeglm, secret groups are not
available

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment)
.

Michael Glögl
identity: https://keybase.io/mgloegl
email: [email protected]
phone: +49 176 63887241
linkedin: https://de.linkedin.com/in/mgloegl

from tdesktop.

@gloeglm: Very good question, which I also have been asking myself several
times. Secure group chats and secure chats to share among different devices
are an important feature, that is still missing.

However, this is a bit off-topic for this report. I assume this would have to
be implemented into the API rather than in the individual applications.

from tdesktop.

Secret group chats and secure sync is not technically possible and will never be implemented. They won't be secure then. Secret chats are only possible between 2 endpoints.
https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different

from tdesktop.

@kleuter I'm not deep in Telegram's home-brewed encryption but "technically impossible"? Couldn't a group chat simply be realised as communications to many different endpoints? So, if I have a group chat between A, B and C and A wants to post message m to the group, it would

• s_1 = encrypt(m, B_pk) encrypt the message with B's public key
• s_2 = encrypt(m, C_pk) and do the same for C. Then, A would
• send(s_1, B) send the first secret to B and
• send(s_2, C) the second to C.

Both recipients would be able to read the message, which would have been encrypted between 2 endpoints each. Yes, this adds some overhead, but—as far as I don't overlook something—it seems far off from being "not technically possible". If performance really were an issue, secret group chats could be limited to say 50 people.

Syncing, however, could be a big security problem; I agree on that.

from tdesktop.

@0nse: Although, this is still the wrong place to discuss, I perfectly agree
with you.

This may not be possible with the current version of the Telegram API,
however, the API could be improved to allow for secret group chats and secret
sync.

In Threema you can do that. Threema is in Germany a well-known competitor to
Telegram. I must admit, that Threema is actually a lot better than Telegram
ATM (secret group chats, no binding of accounts to phone numbers -- I have
absolutely no idea, why Telegram people came to this mad idea of excluding
people without a phone number). However, Threema is non-free software.

Nevertheless, I think, Telegram will have no future, if secret group chats are
not implemented at some time.

from tdesktop.

@PhilippVerpoort
Threema seems to be good, but has two problems:

1. it has no web or Desktop version like telegram, in case I want to chat without mobile (in case of long long typing and discussion)

2. most important is that , I do not use non-open source software on my android phone. And their client seems to be closed source. Atleast they should open source the client, just Like Telegram.

from tdesktop.

I started to use Telegram yesterday and was very disappointed when found that no secret chat in desktop version for windows. The idea of Telegram was in security from start and they missed it to tataly for win desktop. The published reasons like "it is not high priority" disappointing even more. Guys! Two years! What is hight priority for you then???

It couldn't be an issue due to few sessions, it's easy at least execute termination for all other sessions except one that was confirmed from recipient.

So, it looks we see a simple sabotage of main Telegram's idea.

from tdesktop.

Without the secret chat feature Telegram is literally no different than any other service based messenger out there...

from tdesktop.

Really this is important. Telegram is better because it has things like a polished desktop client etc. and having secret chats is also one of the main advantages of Telegram for me. This is really disappointing, I mean that it isn't even considered.

from tdesktop.

wow, a year passed and still no secret chats.

from tdesktop.

On the other hand, it's open-source, feel free to implement it yourself ;)

from tdesktop.

Only client is open-source. To implement such things the server side code is also should be opened.

from tdesktop.

No, it's enough to know which api methods are available and how the encryption works.

from tdesktop.

No, it's enough to know which api methods are available and how the encryption works.

This is insane, and would not, by definition, be encryption. For all intents and purposes, encryption is data security. How is sending information, encrypted or unencrypted, via insecure channels which you know nothing about because they're proprietary data security? Well, it's not. Encryption does not equal trust and trust does not equal encryption.

In addition to that the MTProto encryption standard which is used by Telegram specifically states that its not suited to be used by anything but mobile devices.

To get encryption working reliably on a desktop application a new encryption method and transport protocol would need to be devised which is entirely different from what Telegram is currently using. The time involved is too costly for them to invest in. That's probably why we haven't seen encryption on the desktop application yet.

It's also why I've moved to greater pastures and many, many others are beginning to do the same.

from tdesktop.

This is insane, and would not, by definition, be encryption. For all intents and purposes, encryption is data security. How is sending information, encrypted or unencrypted, via insecure channels which you know nothing about because they're proprietary data security? Well, it's not. Encryption does not equal trust and trust does not equal encryption.

The guys from Cutegram implemented also the secret chat without knowing the source code of the server ;)

from tdesktop.

@auchri @zQueal Correct. CuteGram has the secret chats on Windows, and the official OSX client has also had them since forever.

I don't understand why it's so hard for them to make secret chats available in the FIRST PARTY client, when a THIRD PARTY (Cutegram) has figured it out before them. On top of the lack of backups, this feature stagnation across their various clients is getting ridiculous.

from tdesktop.

Totally agree!!! I think they have all code ready for Windows too and I'm 100% sure with that. But always we have some stupid politics and stuff that we not aware of. Maybe even some hidden agreements with concurrents...

from tdesktop.

"and the official OSX client has also had them since forever" Are you speaking about MAS version because I use the normal Desktop client on OS X (at least sometimes, I'm mostly on Linux) and I don't have secret chats. I refuse to use "App Stores", regular package managers are superior.

from tdesktop.

@jeifour This one: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/messenger-for-telegram/id747648890

from tdesktop.

@auchri Is source code available? And what are generally reasons to make two different applications that run on the same platform? That is all a bit strange to me.

from tdesktop.

@jeifour Yes, here: https://github.com/overtake/telegram

One is our native OSX app, the other is the OSX version of our multiplatform client— Telegram Desktop. Both are official. Both started out as unofficial apps by two different developers and vary in design and functionality.

The OSX app features native OSX design and supports secret chats. Telegram Desktop is optimized for photo and document sharing, as well as sending long text messages. Try both and pick one that suits your day-to-day Telegram usage best.

(From Telegram FAQ)

from tdesktop.

To all those people talking about technical impossibilities: Maybe it's time to switch to another protocol, e.g. OMEMO. It's E2E-encrypted and is absolutely capable of handling cloud-based chats and muti-device approaches: http://conversations.im/omemo/
I'm not a crypto expert but I think it is even more secure than the current Telegram protocol.

So: No, it is not impossible, other communication services already support it right now. The people who are in charge of Telegram just don't care of improving security and privacy of Telegram. The Telegram protocol has been the main issue of criticism from the beginning of Telegram on but it hasn't been dropped yet and I'm pretty sure it won't any time soon.

from tdesktop.

@Mosrite Yes, it was criticised alot, although no unresponded and unresolved questions about Telegram protocol were stated yet.

Anyway this conversation has nothing to do with Telegram Desktop app, which is a client app that just works with the current Telegram API.

from tdesktop.

I understand. But I don't see that the developers of the clients would appreciate an improvement of encryption either. No matter if for desktop, web or mobile clients, it is always stated: "won't work, and we are not in charge" instead of "we would love to implement this and will discuss this with the telegram core team".

So, where would be the right place to suggest modifications to the protocol?

from tdesktop.

I'm not a crypto expert but I think it is even more secure than the current Telegram protocol.

Then don't suggest modification to the protocol please.

from tdesktop.

This issue isn't about changing the protocol anyway, it's to implement "secret chats" as already supported by the protocol into this specific client. As the implementation of secret chats into a multitude of mobile clients and into Cutegram has been successful, it's unlikely that there's a defect in the protocol itself that is the problem here.

from tdesktop.

This issue isn't about changing the protocol anyway, it's to implement "secret chats" as already supported by the protocol into this specific client.

Telegram uses its own encryption standard which isn't implemented on anything but mobile because that's specifically what it's designed for.

As the implementation of secret chats into a multitude of mobile clients and into Cutegram has been successful, it's unlikely that there's a defect in the protocol itself that is the problem here.

These chat messages may be "secret", but they do not use the Telegram encryption standard. As a result, their encryption is a complete joke.

from tdesktop.

I didn't try Cutegram, but I used Canonical's client for Ubuntu Touch, and it allowed me to have a "secret chat" with an iOS user. So at least in some parts these 3rd party clients are adhering to a standard, don't they? (I'm not saying they're implementing it correctly.)

from tdesktop.