I additionally did not say it does not restrict usability, I stated it really works precisely as marketed and so the place you stand; and inside that function it’s imho not right what you say. So if you’d like a medium the place every part is encrypted, you should not use Twitter DMs. Should you’re all about textual content, or maintain that in thoughts, then it is high quality and works for its meant function.
I do not perceive why there may be bother seeing the 2 separate from one another as a substitute of simply lumping them collectively. The truth that photos and different attachments will not be encrypted doesn’t imply that the encryption on the textual content half shouldn’t be good. That’s what you recommend (at the very least: that is the way it sounds to me) with “There are 3 locks however the home windows could be opened”. No, with regards to the objective, which is clearly communicated: the textual content, then there are 3 locks and the home windows could be not Open. That’s simply secured and no backdoors (we assume for the sake of comfort 
). In relation to the attachments, there are not any locks in any respect; so the home windows do not matter. And since it’s neatly stated that the encryption solely applies to the textual content, you can’t say that the encryption on the textual content is problematic (“home windows can open”) as a result of the attachments, as marketed, don’t even have an encrypted channel to be despatched.
It’s true that the usability is restricted, so solely appropriate if you happen to solely wish to alternate textual content/solely appropriate for securely exchanging textual content. However that does not change the aim for which it was apparently made and marketed. If that does not fit your wants, then this is not for you and you may want to make use of a system apart from Twitter’s DMs. However that does not imply it is computerized entire is unsafe, however that’s what you recommend by saying that the locks are ineffective due to ‘the home windows’. The locks work high quality and there are not any home windows to bypass safety (on textual content), there are simply no locks in any respect on something exterior of textual content; which can be clearly acknowledged.
I am not saying I believe it is a good design, am I? Completely not, I choose to make use of a service the place the entire mess is encrypted – together with the attachments. However I do suppose that there must be a distinction between growth technique and completely different merchandise. If for some cause Twitter thinks that simply encrypting the textual content is ok: have at it, high quality. The truth that it’s only partially appropriate, or solely partly safe, for the safe alternate of messages is a totally completely different story than the effectiveness or safety of the encryption itself. And I believe that must be seen individually, so you’ll be able to’t simply say that the encryption itself is totally damaged; it may be fairly properly put collectively for the half it applies to…
[Reactie gewijzigd door WhatsappHack op 11 mei 2023 10:40]
