Expanding Features for End-to-End Encryption on Messenger(about.fb.com)
about.fb.com
Expanding Features for End-to-End Encryption on Messenger
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/01/expanding-features-for-end-to-end-encryption-on-messenger/
69 comments
Probably because their main competitor, iMessage, is E2E. If they can be E2E and cross-device, they can take share from Apple.
BTW, iMessage is not their main competitor (or even comparable to a non-text message cross-platform messaging app). IMO that was messaging from Facebook to avoid antitrust issues. Their main competitors are telegram, wechat, kakao.
In the U.S., the competition is Discord; overseas, WeChat, QQ, Snapchat and Telegram [1]. iMessage is a tool for the rich or young [2].
[1] https://spectrm.io/insights/blog/messaging-app-statistics-mo...
[2] https://www.androidauthority.com/imessage-big-deal-guide-308...
[1] https://spectrm.io/insights/blog/messaging-app-statistics-mo...
[2] https://www.androidauthority.com/imessage-big-deal-guide-308...
I agree with baby here, iMessage ate their lunch long ago,their competition is Kakao, Line, and the likes, not even Wechat, as they have 0 presence in China, and they are far behind features wise.
You make it sound like iMessage won... is that true?! Most of the people I know use some combination of (Facebook) Messenger, whatever you want to call the thing in Instagram (which is now compatible with Messenger), WhatsApp (or some Signal), and even Twitter DMs (which surprises me to no end)... there are only a few people I ever talk to with iMessage anymore. Some people use Telegram (but those people are more techie; the "normal" people I know are on the Meta apps... maybe they are also on TikTok but I'm too old to talk to them ;P). Meanwhile, iMessage seems to be frantically trying to throw in features from Messenger and WhatsApp in order to remain competitive (and then doesn't even do them as well).
Depends on your age and demographics. Young people in the US are probably the biggest market. Everyone else uses Facebook (old US), we chat, Whats app (most of the world?), telegram in Russia, and so on. Actual text messages tends to be a US thing largely, and the the young folks are terrified they will be seen than less than if they don't get the proper color on Imessage with their friends... Yes, that is a thing. My teenage sons will do anything to have an IPhone.
Depends on your age and demographics. Young people in the US are probably the biggest market. Everyone else uses Facebook (old US), we chat, Whats app (most of the woqrld?), tooqok elegram in Russia, and so on. Actual text messages tends to be a US thing largely, and the the young folks are terrifies they will be seen than less than if they don't get the proper color on Imessa881756ge with their friends... Yes, that is a thing. My teenage sons will do anything to have an IPhone.
Nah, at least for me , all my friends(mostly faang SDEs) use iMessage, even the ones working at Google's Android team. The people who own Android devices, I know that in other countries outside the US, Android phone are way more popular(accessible), but I was referring in the US. Regarding features, the integration of iMessage with iOS is superior, I don't get what features of WhatsApp you are talking about, I don't think people who use iMessage would want to broadcasts stuff in channels, etc...
I never said iMessage ate their lunch o_O I know one person in my life that uses iMessage because for some reason they don't want to use whatsapp.
My thoughts exactly. With their closed source app running on the client, they can do literally anything with the plaintext before encrypting it.
Be ready for an expansion of their fear-mongering ad campaigns about how anyone in your office or home can read your messages when you send them unencrypted.
Be ready for an expansion of their fear-mongering ad campaigns about how anyone in your office or home can read your messages when you send them unencrypted.
They always cared about E2E. It was added really early to Whatsapp due to the mobile first client. Messenger always had trouble because users are expected to open the app from different browsers.
The value? They don't need to secure their databases against external AND internal attacks (believe it or not, fb has protections in place so that employees don't randomly access user data), they can more easily be compliant with the never-ending stream of regulations like GDPR, and... they can more easily do interop with WhatsApp (which doesn't have plaintext messaging).
The value? They don't need to secure their databases against external AND internal attacks (believe it or not, fb has protections in place so that employees don't randomly access user data), they can more easily be compliant with the never-ending stream of regulations like GDPR, and... they can more easily do interop with WhatsApp (which doesn't have plaintext messaging).
> They always cared about E2E. It was added really early to Whatsapp due to the mobile first client.
Define "always". The very early releases of WhatsApp used plaintext. Encryption was added in 2013, and E2E (using the Signal protocol) was added in 2016.
Define "always". The very early releases of WhatsApp used plaintext. Encryption was added in 2013, and E2E (using the Signal protocol) was added in 2016.
WhatsApp wasn't originally a product from Facebook. They bought it in 2014 and the article I found about them fully launching end-to-end encryption in 2016 says that it was in rollout for the prior year on various platforms, which would imply they had already been working on it before that; I've always understood it to be a thing that Facebook took seriously pretty quickly after getting WhatsApp.
https://threatpost.com/whatsapp-adds-end-to-end-encryption-t...
> “Over the past year, we’ve been progressively rolling out Signal Protocol support for all WhatsApp communication across all WhatsApp clients. This includes chats, group chats, attachments, voice notes, and voice calls across Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Blackberry, and BB10,” wrote Open Whisper Systems founder, Moxie Marlinspike.
https://threatpost.com/whatsapp-adds-end-to-end-encryption-t...
> “Over the past year, we’ve been progressively rolling out Signal Protocol support for all WhatsApp communication across all WhatsApp clients. This includes chats, group chats, attachments, voice notes, and voice calls across Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Blackberry, and BB10,” wrote Open Whisper Systems founder, Moxie Marlinspike.
> with ML models running on devices now, they've found a way to show relevant-enough ads by doing all the "relevancy"
I think you're missing how information is extracted and what E2EE means. Most of the machine learning models work off of metadata and so the actual content of the messages isn't exactly necessary. Yes, they can help, but it is also often a lot of noise. They've probably found and experimented with WhatsApp and found that they are able to extract enough information through the metadata that they can still maintain high accuracy on inferences. So why not make the PR stunt and move towards encryption? It actually does do some good for people (also note that Twitter has been talking about E2EE messages, though remember that they partnered with OpenWhisper very early on...).
This is really the main difference between the technical aspects of Signal and WhatsApp. Both use the same E2EE protocol but Signal does not capture metadata. We need to remember that metadata is essentially all the information a private investigator would have on you if they followed you around but could not hear the actual content of any conversations you had with the people that you meet. But they would know who you meet, how often, where, etc. Metadata is pretty useful data.
I think you're missing how information is extracted and what E2EE means. Most of the machine learning models work off of metadata and so the actual content of the messages isn't exactly necessary. Yes, they can help, but it is also often a lot of noise. They've probably found and experimented with WhatsApp and found that they are able to extract enough information through the metadata that they can still maintain high accuracy on inferences. So why not make the PR stunt and move towards encryption? It actually does do some good for people (also note that Twitter has been talking about E2EE messages, though remember that they partnered with OpenWhisper very early on...).
This is really the main difference between the technical aspects of Signal and WhatsApp. Both use the same E2EE protocol but Signal does not capture metadata. We need to remember that metadata is essentially all the information a private investigator would have on you if they followed you around but could not hear the actual content of any conversations you had with the people that you meet. But they would know who you meet, how often, where, etc. Metadata is pretty useful data.
Agreed and I think people underestimate the amount of metadata the WhatsApp servers see. It includes:
- all numbers in every user's contact list
- the membership of every group
- the sender and recipient of every message
- when every message was sent, received, and viewed or played
- the dates and times that every user has been present
- the type of every message sent (text, sticker, video, voice recording, poll, etc.)
- the size of every message sent (to the nearest 16 bytes)
- the date, time and duration of all calls made between users
And probably other metadata too. Basically everything except for the message content.
The client also uploads crash dumps (along with a copy of the log output), and periodically sends usage statistics too.
- all numbers in every user's contact list
- the membership of every group
- the sender and recipient of every message
- when every message was sent, received, and viewed or played
- the dates and times that every user has been present
- the type of every message sent (text, sticker, video, voice recording, poll, etc.)
- the size of every message sent (to the nearest 16 bytes)
- the date, time and duration of all calls made between users
And probably other metadata too. Basically everything except for the message content.
The client also uploads crash dumps (along with a copy of the log output), and periodically sends usage statistics too.
correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they don't target ads based on private messages.
Casual reminder: facebooks e2e is absolutely marketing. Facebook has no interest in your personal security.
Download signal.
Download signal.
Facebook had several privacy scandals. E2E encryption is a way to signal that they take privacy seriously.
So is this liability reduction for them? Too many subpoenas and this makes responding to them more efficient? It doesn't seem like "messenger is e2e encrypted" actually matters for marketing and adoption so either it is a cheap fiction for marketing or there is a motive I don't understand.
IMO the value comes in this order:
1. liability reduction
2. interop with WhatsApp
3. marketing
4. added security for their users :D
1. liability reduction
2. interop with WhatsApp
3. marketing
4. added security for their users :D
#2 is interesting. I am very curious what the ultimate plan for having 2 messaging apps is (at least in Zuck’s head). My bet is that his fantasy is to eventually merge them into a single service: Meta Messenger.
Yeah I believe the plan for interop has been public for years now
FB messenger is largely used in US. In non-US countries everyone uses Whatsapp.
If they drop whatsapp to combine both of them, it will have quite serious effects and completely ruin the whole 'thing'.
If they drop whatsapp to combine both of them, it will have quite serious effects and completely ruin the whole 'thing'.
interop is not about dropping one over the other, it's about being able to talk to messenger user through whatsapp
They could do this very gradually. First rename WhatsApp to Meta Messenger. Keep everything else the same. Then with interop being implemented slowly merge FB messenger into Meta Messenger.
Out of curiosity here, does anyone trust that Facebook is actually implementing proper E2EE, between two users, with no key interception / logging, and not just as some marketing gimmick where they actually mean that the connection between your device and the Facebook server is "end-to-end encrypted"?
Call me jaded, call me cynical, but at this point, I do not trust a single word that corporation prints regarding privacy.
Call me jaded, call me cynical, but at this point, I do not trust a single word that corporation prints regarding privacy.
Why should we assume that they are handling encryption in Messenger different from encryption in WhatsApp?
On the other hand, why should we assume WhatsApp's E2EE is 100% like the double ratchet spec and not 90% or even 50%?
No one knows if WhatsApp implements E2EE correctly and does not do anything funny with your data. As long as that remains unproven due to the closed source binary we should never assume WhatsApp's E2EE is 'good enough'. It's also Facebook so you know half the story already.
No one knows if WhatsApp implements E2EE correctly and does not do anything funny with your data. As long as that remains unproven due to the closed source binary we should never assume WhatsApp's E2EE is 'good enough'. It's also Facebook so you know half the story already.
Personally, I don't assume they're implemented differently - I use neither because I don't trust closed source code, I don't trust big tech corporations like FB, and I definitely do not trust closed source code from big tech corporations like FB.
Mind you, I say this as someone who audits closed source code at a big tech corporation as a profession - someone who deliberately avoids using a single piece of closed source software developed by their employer on any personal devices despite it being ubiquitous and in widespread use.
Mind you, I say this as someone who audits closed source code at a big tech corporation as a profession - someone who deliberately avoids using a single piece of closed source software developed by their employer on any personal devices despite it being ubiquitous and in widespread use.
Overall pretty meaningless coming from Facebook. They'll still collect all the metadata they want. The only theoretical benefit this offers to the user is in the event of a massive Messenger data breach, at least the contents of user messages won't be leaked. Which I guess is some comfort, to somebody?
I'd prefer it if Facebook implemented more features into Messenger - like broader text formatting support, better media management, better search capabilities OR at least give us an API to write our own clients on top of the Messenger infrastructure.
Does is pass the mud puddle test?
That's a joke anyways. Regardless if Facebook can/will/wont/pretend to not being able to give you your data back, they could store it.
do you trust faceboook ?
If the client is closed source, and developed by an untrustworthy company, e2ee doesn't matter.
I disagree.
Even a closed source client soon has opensource 'compatible' clients. To build those, you need to reverse engineer/understand the crypto. In the process of doing that, you will likely uncover any systemic flaw that reveals every conversation to a passive attacker.
That effectively leaves the 'send a secret message to leak the key' type backdoors that the client could have. However, if this functionality existed and was used on every chat, then it is quickly discovered by anyone debugging the unofficial client.
So the only remaining 'loophole' is that there is a backdoor in the official client, but that it is only used very rarely or on request.
That in turn means that facebook can't go do large scale data mining on the private chats. Thats a win.
Even a closed source client soon has opensource 'compatible' clients. To build those, you need to reverse engineer/understand the crypto. In the process of doing that, you will likely uncover any systemic flaw that reveals every conversation to a passive attacker.
That effectively leaves the 'send a secret message to leak the key' type backdoors that the client could have. However, if this functionality existed and was used on every chat, then it is quickly discovered by anyone debugging the unofficial client.
So the only remaining 'loophole' is that there is a backdoor in the official client, but that it is only used very rarely or on request.
That in turn means that facebook can't go do large scale data mining on the private chats. Thats a win.
When had anyone reverse engineered their way to a compatible client for FB Messenger or WhatsApp? To my knowledge there are only hacky bridges that involve running the official client under the hood.
[1] is that for whatsapp. It implements everything from scratch, including the crypto and all the many layers of message encapsulation. I believe there are a few other clients too. It even implements the API's to create a new account, so you don't even need to touch their client code at all.
FB messenger doesn't yet have e2e encryption, so there hasn't yet been any need.
[1]: https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup
FB messenger doesn't yet have e2e encryption, so there hasn't yet been any need.
[1]: https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup
[deleted]
It looks like they're getting users banned [0] for using alternative clients.
[0] https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aop...
[0] https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aop...
That doesn't mean it didn't work; in fact, quite the opposite!
Taking into account that they are known to work closely with the FBI.
So what they call e2ee cryptography is ridiculous. Their business is built off violating users privacy, why would anyone trust them? They've got your keys. Signal exists for this very reason.
Technically we also trust Signal not to push a signed update to their software that exfiltrates our keys. Whether or not Meta is doing E2EE should be clear from snooping their protocol or reverse engineering the software.
Nothing is stopping you from auditing the code and building the client software yourself: https://github.com/signalapp
You don't even have that option with closed source software.
You don't even have that option with closed source software.
I think some users might be happy that the average FB engineer can't just see all their messages.
That the FBI can is a concern to absolutists, but I don't think the masses.
That the FBI can is a concern to absolutists, but I don't think the masses.
> I think some users might be happy that the average FB engineer can't just see all their messages.
Maybe not the regular L4 SDE, but the people who are supposed to see it, can and will see it.
[deleted]
> Taking into account that they are known to work closely with the FBI
This is basically true for any sizable company in the US. And this is also true with small companies. If the FBI wants to work with you, you don't really have a choice.
And if you're not in the US, you're working with whoever is the FBI in that country.
This is basically true for any sizable company in the US. And this is also true with small companies. If the FBI wants to work with you, you don't really have a choice.
And if you're not in the US, you're working with whoever is the FBI in that country.
No you are not, many companies have warrant canaries. Or make public the warrants, and state exactly all the information they can share with the authorities, that is usually nothing besides IP, or device the customer used to connect. My point was that Facebook will decrypt(in the case that are really encrypted) your messages.
> many companies have warrant canaries
Many? It feels like it's been 10 years since I've seen one, and it's only a US thing. I'm wondering if Signal still has one (I can't find it, so maybe the canary is "dead"). Canaries are also a legal grey area.
> My point was that Facebook will decrypt(in the case that are really encrypted) your messages
That's FUD.
Many? It feels like it's been 10 years since I've seen one, and it's only a US thing. I'm wondering if Signal still has one (I can't find it, so maybe the canary is "dead"). Canaries are also a legal grey area.
> My point was that Facebook will decrypt(in the case that are really encrypted) your messages
That's FUD.
An open source client gives a false sense of security as the APK you're downloading is compiled. In the end you still need to decompile the APK to know what it is really doing.
Open source client doesn't matter in mobile world, as you never compile the app yourself. This is only misleading to the non-tech users who don't get how the whole thing works. That's why Telegram's claim of security is total garbage because while their client is "open source", the backend is that has all the messages is not. Something they don't clearly state on their website.
So the Telegram's admins can read all the messages in plain text on the backend. So "open source" client means absolutely nothing for the security.
Open source client doesn't matter in mobile world, as you never compile the app yourself. This is only misleading to the non-tech users who don't get how the whole thing works. That's why Telegram's claim of security is total garbage because while their client is "open source", the backend is that has all the messages is not. Something they don't clearly state on their website.
So the Telegram's admins can read all the messages in plain text on the backend. So "open source" client means absolutely nothing for the security.
IIRC you can encrypt direct messages on Telegram, so there is some security there.
I'd still rather use Signal though.
I'd still rather use Signal though.
True. And the Telegram founder still proud for their privacy. Lol
> An open source client gives a false sense of security as the APK you're downloading is compiled. In the end you still need to decompile the APK to know what it is really doing.
Okay, so we're ignoring verifiable builds exist?
> Open source client doesn't matter in mobile world, as you never compile the app yourself.
That's a really weird take. Nobody ever checks files for corruption or modification but hashes still exist. Just because most people do not check something does not mean it's non-existent or pointless.
> So the Telegram's admins can read all the messages in plain text on the backend.
They can't. The messages are encrypted on the servers and their keys are split between multiple jurisdictions. No engineer can decrypt messages.
Okay, so we're ignoring verifiable builds exist?
> Open source client doesn't matter in mobile world, as you never compile the app yourself.
That's a really weird take. Nobody ever checks files for corruption or modification but hashes still exist. Just because most people do not check something does not mean it's non-existent or pointless.
> So the Telegram's admins can read all the messages in plain text on the backend.
They can't. The messages are encrypted on the servers and their keys are split between multiple jurisdictions. No engineer can decrypt messages.
>They can't. The messages are encrypted on the servers and their keys are split between multiple jurisdictions. No engineer can decrypt messages.
You really don't get why E2E encryption is necessary, do you?
You really don't get why E2E encryption is necessary, do you?
Telegram already has E2EE, if you want to use it and the algorithm is well audited as well.
E2EE has obvious flaws, mostly related to feature-set. Cloud sync is difficult with E2EE, as well as managing chats with thousands of members. Telegram is more of a social media with a great convenient messenger. It doesn't make sense for it to be like WhatsApp or Signal. Those who use Telegram know the difference very well.
E2EE has obvious flaws, mostly related to feature-set. Cloud sync is difficult with E2EE, as well as managing chats with thousands of members. Telegram is more of a social media with a great convenient messenger. It doesn't make sense for it to be like WhatsApp or Signal. Those who use Telegram know the difference very well.
[deleted]
I wish this type of comment wouldn't inevitably come up in these discussions. Not only is it fundamentally wrong but it's actively harmful to improving security and privacy by scaring people away from things that may be just fine and that are probably better than a lot of the insecure alternatives they'll actually use instead.
To the extent open source matters at all when looking at E2E encryption, it theoretically makes it easier to see whether the source code implements a secure protocol. This sounds much more useful than it actually is. For one thing, almost nobody is compiling the source code themselves, so you're ultimately going to have to evaluate the security of compiled code anyways. Also there is an incredibly vast gap between the promise and reality of the open source promise in terms of finding security problems. Accidental or deliberate weaknesses can be subtle and hard to find whether or not you have the code. The extensive history of serious cryptographic problems living in open source code for years before they were found and people regularly being able to find problems in software despite it being closed source suggests open source as a security panacea should be taken with a large grain of salt.
To the extent open source matters at all when looking at E2E encryption, it theoretically makes it easier to see whether the source code implements a secure protocol. This sounds much more useful than it actually is. For one thing, almost nobody is compiling the source code themselves, so you're ultimately going to have to evaluate the security of compiled code anyways. Also there is an incredibly vast gap between the promise and reality of the open source promise in terms of finding security problems. Accidental or deliberate weaknesses can be subtle and hard to find whether or not you have the code. The extensive history of serious cryptographic problems living in open source code for years before they were found and people regularly being able to find problems in software despite it being closed source suggests open source as a security panacea should be taken with a large grain of salt.
I think your analysis is harsh, and over-stated. At worst people have ignored the potential to find problems from source code review. At best people have discovered security holes in closed-source cryptography code.
They are not equal to effect and motivations of either user or finder.
I would like to understand if you consider signal (for example, as a very large community of use e2ee with open source) has substantive problems due to people "not looking hard enough"
They are not equal to effect and motivations of either user or finder.
I would like to understand if you consider signal (for example, as a very large community of use e2ee with open source) has substantive problems due to people "not looking hard enough"
I can't believe we're really debating that using E2EE and closed source in the same sentence is not that great.
E2EE without verifiable builds is as good as a cheeto lock. Even with all the E2EE claims, Facebook could still do anything with the data and you could never hold them accountable because the binary code is obfuscated in the first place so all you would really have is half-reverse engineered stuff that also breaks WhatsApp's terms of use policy.
Please stop defending FB, everytime someone does it, they prove all of you wrong again.
E2EE without verifiable builds is as good as a cheeto lock. Even with all the E2EE claims, Facebook could still do anything with the data and you could never hold them accountable because the binary code is obfuscated in the first place so all you would really have is half-reverse engineered stuff that also breaks WhatsApp's terms of use policy.
Please stop defending FB, everytime someone does it, they prove all of you wrong again.
Active Status: Let people see when you’re active, so they know when it’s a good time to call. You can also choose to turn this feature off, if you want to improve your privacy.
Why is calling still a thing? It interrupts whatever the person was doing. And just KNOWING that any one of your 5000 contacts can call you at any time can be very distracting and make you anxious subciously.
What is wrong with async scheduling meetings? And threaded conversations?
I can understand read receipts but online status is silly. It only enables stalking. Why not have people bid for your timeslots and fill up classes and office hours etc.? Everyone would have a happier life.
Why is calling still a thing? It interrupts whatever the person was doing. And just KNOWING that any one of your 5000 contacts can call you at any time can be very distracting and make you anxious subciously.
What is wrong with async scheduling meetings? And threaded conversations?
I can understand read receipts but online status is silly. It only enables stalking. Why not have people bid for your timeslots and fill up classes and office hours etc.? Everyone would have a happier life.
It just doesn't add up.