Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, recently criticized the privacy mechanisms of the encrypted messaging app Signal, calling them a “circus trick.” However, Durov’s history with Signal and Telegram’s own privacy credentials raise doubts about the sincerity of his comments.
Durov has been attacking Signal for years, even going as far as predicting that a backdoor would be found in their protocol within five years. However, that prediction has proven to be false. Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike has also suggested that Telegram should not be considered an encrypted messaging app.
It’s clear that there is animosity between Signal and Telegram. In this context, Durov’s recent post seems more like a strategic move to undermine a market competitor rather than a genuine concern about backdoored software.
Signal had already faced criticism after comments made by Signal Foundation Chair Katherine Maher, which sparked controversy on social media. Durov took advantage of this situation to redirect the anger towards Signal itself.
Signal responded to the claims about their app and protocol, with President Meredith Whittaker providing important context to address the issue.
While things may have settled down for now, this conflict is far from over. It has the potential to become a major rivalry in the cybersecurity world.
Interestingly, there seems to be an emerging anti-Signal sentiment in certain circles. This may have started when Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News anchor, questioned the security of messaging apps like Signal. His claims about the NSA obtaining his Signal messages may have contributed to the doubts surrounding Signal.
Connecting the dots, Carlson interviewed Durov in April, and one month later, Durov claimed that key figures had informed him that their “private” Signal messages had been exploited. It’s worth noting that Carlson is likely one of the figures Durov is referring to.
Telegram has always positioned itself as an encrypted messaging app, but it falls short compared to Signal. Telegram lacks default end-to-end encryption and does not offer end-to-end encrypted group chats. This means that the majority of Telegram users are not protected by essential privacy features.
Nevertheless, Durov continues to amplify doubts about Signal to promote Telegram. Further conflict between the two messaging apps is likely.
Signal, on the other hand, has not supported Maher’s controversial comments. Their stance is that Maher’s politics do not affect the trustworthiness of Signal’s code. With highly audited, open-source code, Signal has a relatively trustless model.
However, there is another alternative to both Signal and Telegram. Session, an end-to-end encrypted messaging app, operates on a decentralized network. This network is run by community members who contribute computing resources to route and store messages. The client and server code is open source, and users can verify that the code running on the network is the same as the open-source code. Session offers a trustless model where users don’t need to rely on any central authority.
However, there are trade-offs in choosing different messaging apps. No app has all the features and benefits. It’s important to consider the specific needs and priorities of each user.
In conclusion, Durov’s criticism of Signal should be taken with a grain of salt considering his history with the app and the shortcomings of Telegram. The rivalry between Signal and Telegram is likely to continue, but users should carefully evaluate their options and select the messaging app that best meets their needs.