For open source messengers, you can check whether they actually encrypt your messages and whether the server has access to your encryption keys but what about WhatsApp? Since it's not open source, you can't be sure that the encryption keys aren't sent to the server, right? Has there been a case where a government was able to access WhatsApp chats without reading them from the phone itself?
Facebook owns what’s app and they can read any message on the service, they’ve also been known to give logs and messages to law enforcement agencies at request without warrants.
You'll see that Facebook cannot, in fact, give logs to law enforcement. If you choose to report a message you've received and send it to Facebook, then obviously then they can read it.
Also, your claim in another comment that Facebook does not have private keys to decrypt your encrypted messages is just fantasy.
According to the declassified internal FBI document I just linked, they do have access to the content of messages from what’s app, without any formal legal request.
The NY post is a poor source and completely unreliable.
You bet your ass they can. Since when has Facebook taken anybody's privacy seriously? And you remember all the Snowden leaks? Like how AT&T has been a government apparatus for spying for decades? Or how about the way that the USA taps under sea cables to monitor data, causing China to build totally parallel backbone infrastructure
The better question is whether Signal, despite being open source, is actually secure. It's very plausible that the govt has backdoors somewhere, for either encryption, the OS, the programming language, the app store, or some random dependency lib
The answer is yes, the US government spies on everything, and has a complete profile of everyone
Well, in my comment I describe quite a number of methods. It doesn't matter how secure or reviewed signal is, if the feds have a keylogger at the OS or compiler level. It's really unbelievable how much code is involved in day to day security
Another thing to consider is that the US (and probably most 5 eyes countries) have agencies with a "store now and decrypt later" policy. They theoretically could be capturing certain types of traffic and storing it in the massive NSA fusion centers. If you come under suspicion at some later date and the quantum technology has advanced, you could be hosed. Now what's the legality of storing "precrime material" without a warrant? I wouldn't think it is legal but that doesn't seem to stop the 3 letter agencies these days.
They don't have to attack the encryption, there are far easier ways. Compromising your phone then reading the notification contents for example. If a smallish company can do this (pegasus) imagine what the resources of the US intelligence complex can do.
Given enough time anything can be decrypted, so, yes. The actual question is if they would have any interest in doing so given the large investment of time and resources required when they can simply hit you with a wrench until you give them the password to your device or in more enlightened Countries, just buy the data directly form Meta. You don't control the server so there is no assurance of any encryption being secure beyond your chat not being interesting enough to justify the attention.
Everything I've ever heard about government cryptography from people close to me is that the government (FBI, military) is wildly far ahead of what's available publicly. I wouldn't count on anything you do on the Internet to be truly private.
That was at times of DES. Cryptography that is used today is proven to be complicated enough that it's unbreakable unless the government got quantum computing working at sufficient skale.
Like others wrote, attacks will happen when the messages are received and decrypted.
If you did not enable end-to-end encryption for your WhatsApp backups on Google Drive, the US government could possibly compel Google to hand over your encrypted (but not end-to-end encrypted) backup, and compel Meta to hand over the decryption keys for the backup.
Its a book of proceedings of a scientific conference, usually peer-reviewed. Springer publishes the proceedings but has nothing to do with the selection of the papers or their scientific quality... its just a service they provide, for a fee.
The code is not open source, so it's hard to verify how good the encryption is or if it has backdoors.
I'm not an expert in cryptography, but from my limited knowledge, the cryptographic keys used are very important. If Meta or the government can somehow know the decryption key to your messages or predict it, then they can see your messages.
But they most likely don't need to decrypt it in transit. One of the vulnerabilities in this system is Google firebase, which delivers notifications to your phone when WhatsApp messages arrive. Ever noticed how those notifications include the message content and the sender? Google has access to this information, despite the encryption.
That's just an example. Google has access to a lot on your phone.
Another thing to consider is message metadata. The content of your message is encrypted, but what about information like the destination of your message, its recipients, time sent and received, and frequency? I'd even argue this is more important than content in many situations. Sometimes, linking person A to person B tells me a lot about person A.
Ever noticed how those notifications include the message content and the sender? Google has access to this information, despite the encryption.
Not necessarily. I work on a messaging app, and we only use firebase to "wake up" the app. Initially the notification doesn't display anything meaningful, but the app very quickly connects to the server (tells the app who it should connect with) and then the peer (to finally get the actual content). The notification is updated once we have the content. But it typically goes so fast that you only ever see the final version of the notification.
Open source can make it easier to audit software, but we're long past the point where we can't audit unfree and/or closed source software. Open source is great and important, but the debate around open source regarding trust and security is often a sideshow.
If 1. all participating devices are sufficiently secure and will be sufficiently secure in the future, 2. no participating device backs up your conversations to the cloud or only does so in a sufficiently encrypted manner, and 3. no participating user leaks your information in any other way, then yes, the general expectation is that your WhatsApp chats with people are encrypted. Keep in mind that defaults, nudges, and people work against you in this long list of requirements.
Oh, and... more importantly... metadata. But that's a separate issue. WhatsApp's encryption claim could be entirely true, but still work against user privacy, simply because those conditions are almost never true ...and also, again, meta data.
Users conscientious enough to consistently meet all of these requirements could simply use a platform deemed less hostile to user privacy, such as Matrix or Signal.
yowsup is an Open Source implementation of the WhatsApp protocol. So there is proper end-to-end encryption on the protocol level - that would only leave the possibility of having a backdoor in the "official" WhatsApp client, but none has been found so far. BTW, people do actually (try to) decompile the WhatsApp client (or the WhatsApp Web client which implements the same protocol and functionality) and look what it is doing.
For anyone really curious, it's not too difficult to hook into the WhatsApp Web client with your web browsers Javascript debugger and see what messages are sent.
Only public keys get exchanged via Meta's servers, those keys don't help you with trying to decrypt any messages (you need the corresponding private key to decrypt - and that private key stays on the device).
Sure, they could just do a man in the middle, but that can be detected by verifying the keys (once, via another channel).
The better question is, do you trust meta at all? I'm sure they have a way to read everyone's chats and would gladly hand over yours to the government if they want it.
It does not matter how good the encryption is. The app on your device has to be able to decrypt the content to be able to show it to you. If it has access to the decrypted data, it could just send it somewhere. If it has access to your private key, it can leak it. Even if the app is open source, you do not know if the binary on your phone matches that source, unless it uses reproducible builds and you actually verify the binary on your particular device, after each update.
I personally wouldn't touch WhatsApp with a 10foot pole. As it is owned by Facebook, the company who earlier this year paid a company to compromise TAILS OS to find a pedo. Which its not the fact that they threw a pedo in jail. But the fact they compromised anonymity and in no way are a government body!!! So glowies be glowing hard at Facebook.
They also have done other spooky shit.
Which is why the only reason I use Facebook is to sell my shit.
We could also talk about the OS and hardware your using to message people for security. If you want to know more read permanent record by Edward snowden. Its a great book and talks alot about PRISM and other spooky stuff
Governments, if they want, can decrypt any chat, not just Whatscrap.
But it makes a difference if a chat, especially this Zuckerbot shit, directly opens a Backdoor to governments, to give them access, or if they have to bother hacking the chats themselves, which due to its cost and time, is only done with a court order.
I mean, it's possible given their resources... It just takes long enough to be unfeasible. Also, in special circumstances they can Pegasus your phone and obtain the info without decrypting... Not like you're not screwed anyways when it comes to such drastic measures.