Does that mean that other apps like signal for example have back doors?
Do criminals have a knowledge of exploits in the recommended messaging apps?
Does that mean that other apps like signal for example have back doors?
Do criminals have a knowledge of exploits in the recommended messaging apps?
I disagree, stupid self developed systems leak so much more, I think the number 1 reason is, surprise surprise, stupid people.
Also plenty of criminals and organized crime also use standard tools like telegram (which is way worse then signal)
I think you’re both right. I think the non-stupid people with successful self-developed systems simply aren’t talked about, because they don’t get caught, because they’re not stupid.
It probably depends on the level of the criminals and organized crime groups. I saw this Youtube video a couple weeks ago that talks about the history of how organized crime groups were using encrypted communication https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigIOc_0PKo (And how they were honey-potted by the FBI to use an FBI-hosted service, lol)
Organized crime groups that make 100s of millions should be capable enough to hire skilled developers and sysops to host self-managed services. At some point if they make enough money, investing in self-managed communication becomes preferable over using telegram or signal.
There are multi million companies that get hacked left and right, money does not mean intelligent security measures.
Also, best option is the big ones, anyone who wants real security and privacy should use something that already exists. Sure, maybe not signal (even though for anything less then a state actor it is plenty) but there are plenty of self-hosted or decentralized communication apps out there.
Anyone who builds their own app is very likely making a bad decision.
Just a reminder that one of the most wanted man in the world by the most capable state in the world (Snowden) is using signal
That’s a very simplistic way of arguing or thinking about the issue. You are in fact not surrounded by idiots. Not everybody has expertise in your field (or the field you believe to be an expert in), so to you, it might seem obvious, but them, it’s not.
Ridiculing others for “omg that was so obvious” is a failure on your part to see the obvious: they have other shit going on. I’d like to see you become a successful drug lord, escape capture for decades, and be an expert in computing at the same time. It wouldn’t surprise me if you’d utterly fail at the drug lord part and make basic mistakes that a drug lord would call you an idiot for.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Look, no one needs to be an expert on everything, in the context of running a drug ring, being stupid means not having the roght experts for the right tasks.
If I was a drug lord I would start by hiring someone who has done it in the past.
If you approach cyber security with the mindset that it is simple and you don’t need an expert, then you are an idiot. Same as if you approached almost any subject with dire consequences if done poorly.
So yeah, if your “cyber security expert” is your computer guy who does everything, unless he is actually a cyber security expert, you are an idiot.