Not sure how that partitions the files on disk though, would probably need some code changes to work with some kind of firejail setup.
This is seamless on Qubes OS: You just click a link and a new empty VM with Firefox opens. You close the browser, and the VM is destroyed. Can't recommend it enough.
[0] https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/qsb-116-multiple-xen-issues-xsa...
By the way, they don't have just one web apps. They have A, they have K, and apparently a Z – subdomain is webz, or maybe that's actaully A. Not sure.
I used to use Cookie Auto Delete for years. But when I last checked it seemed unmaintained. I log out of all somewhat important services anyway every time I am done.
For important stuff like banking I use Firefox containers.
Yeah, all of them could have their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. I just hope no attacker hits exactly the stack I use...
Seems like many people do this when it comes to russian tech. Im American and I certainly trust my data in the hands of a foriegn government/entity (which is not even the case for telegram), than my own. Even if it was a russian op (its not the Ukrainian military literally used telegram for years), the russian government cant touch me.
It also has way more security features too, such as the ability for any session to de-auth any other session, while on Signal, only one mobile device is your "primary", so you're screwed if you lose that. Also tons of detailed permissions for who is allowed to see what information of yours and add you to groups. The only thing Signal actually does better is E2EE for groups. I think it's simplistic and short-sighted that many tech people seem to think that "security" means E2EE and absolutely nothing else.
Except when you enable E2EE, you lose a lot of the features like stickers.
Also, enabling E2EE manually leaks additional metadata about intent to hide content from the service provider. That's insanely valuable even if you can't see the content.
Telegram treats E2EE like a door wreath hung from a nail. Practically all private messengers like Signal treat it like the foundations of the building.
>much better behavior for large groups
Telegram leaks a group as large as the size of 3 members, to the server, always, with ZERO way to opt-out. That's not better behavior. Whatever seasoning you apply on top of a turd, won't change what you're eating.
>far more sophisticated and granular permissions system for admins in groups
Yeah when you remove the "server has no ability to control the group" security feature you can do all sorts of things really easily.
>It also has way more security features too, such as the ability for any session to de-auth any other session
Way more in this case is clearly one. And this is a trade-off. Any of your devices gets stolen and the attacker can lock you out.
>so you're screwed if you lose that.
No you can keep backups in the cloud these days to recover your account. Unlike Telegram, the backups are actually encrypted so that the service provider can't read them.
>Also tons of detailed permissions for who is allowed to see what information of yours and add you to groups.
You mean, it allows you to control to whom the service provider yields the data. But the main privacy issue with Facebook, Telegram and any other surveillance capitalistic platform is the service provider. And Telegram isn't fixing Telegram learning everything about you.
>The only thing Signal actually does better is E2EE for groups.
Signal does EVERY thing better because every feature is private by design. Even if there's UX stuff to fix. You wouldn't claim some Trojan horse malware is really good because the game crack works and you can play a 30 dollar game while it steals your entire digital life or demands random or whatever.
>I think it's simplistic and short-sighted that many tech people seem to think that "security" means E2EE and absolutely nothing else.
In private messaging apps security begins with E2EE. Then you add tons of other features, like forward secrecy (Signal does it better than Telegram), future secrecy (Signal does it better than Telegram), Post-quantum security (Signal has it and Telegram doesn't), cross-platform messages usage (Telegram has no cross-platform E2EE), default security (Telegram has none), and that's just content. There's much more private tools for metadata protection, and on top of that you have advanced issues like endpoint security to deal with. E2EE is the bare minimum for e.g. PrivacyGuides app recommendations, and Telegram can't even cross that bar.
>In private messaging apps security begins with E2EE.
This may be clearer from a product point of view. Your apparent viewpoint, and that of Signal etc, seems to be that protection from the server (and admittedly whoever can coerce whoever owns the server) is the only thing that matters, no matter what other features you have to throw out to get it.
What I am calling out is that this is a fundamentally ideological point of view. You can believe that and act according to it if you want, but general readers should be aware of what they are losing in order to enact this ideology with benefits that seem to be a bit dubious in the real world.
It is well known that Meta is happy to hand over to any legitimate law enforcement agency any content they have. To the best of my knowledge, Telegram never has, and neither has Signal. The fact that Telegram potentially could someday seems more theoretical to me. Again, to the best of my knowledge, all actual leaks of messaging group content have been by various authorities compromising individual devices and/or their owners, which works equally well against Telegram and Signal.
Meanwhile, Telegram gives you a lot more practical security regarding what information to share with other users, and how to manage what other users can do in large chat groups, which seems like a much more real-world concern regarding actual dangers to users than what the company that owns it might potentially do at some future date.
I think for real security, it's better to pay attention to the business model of the company that runs it. Meta's business model is indeed to basically sell your data to advertisers. Telegram does not do this, and shows no signs of wanting to. Instead, you can pay for premium, and they allow advertising as messages in public channels, and they're doing some semi-dubious stuff with cryptocurrency. Signal seems a little weird, they are apparently funded by some sort of donations from unknown parties. It seems to work okay for now, I guess, but is their financial future any more secure?
>>so you're screwed if you lose that.
>No you can keep backups in the cloud these days to recover your account. Unlike Telegram, the backups are actually encrypted so that the service provider can't read them.
I wasn't talking about that, but about the ability to de-auth your mobile device (the one probably most likely to someday get lost) from another device, since no one device is the "primary". Yes, an attacker could potentially lock you out if they get into your Telegram on the compromised device before you get on one of your other devices. But on Signal, you're screwed if it's your mobile, and fine if it's any other device.
Though since you mentioned backups, I think Telegram's way is arguably more secure. Individual user backups, even encrypted, means all your communication security is at the mercy of whoever in your group has the weakest encryption keys and backup storage location. With a centralized system like Telegram, it's never anywhere but their servers.
> Telegram has no cross-platform E2EE
If you mean between an Android and an Apple device, that is supported, to my knowledge.
Telegram's E2EE is acceptable only for limited use cases, though, it's crippled beyond belief.
When you can't continue the secret chat on your desktop device, you'll eventually get tired of having to dig your phone from your phone, unlock it, open telegram, navigate to chat, reply, lock phone, put it back to pocket continue work; the alternative of ditching security and just alt-tabbing to insecure chat on desktop client wins.
This is what a modern backdoor would look like. Vendor can't be blamed about introducing a backdoor, when using the backdoor feature is your own fault.
And this is just DMs where E2EE is possible in the first place.
The only purpose of the private chats feature at this point is to be able to claim that Telegram can do E2EE
Lots of people follow channels for on the ground news reporting, especially since it's not censored or "advertiser friendly" like social media companies are incentivised to be.
My Bible study class has grown enough that standard SMS/MMS group texts are hitting up against Verizon's carrier limit (I think we have only two people who use Verizon), and RCS isn't an option. Telegram wasn't my first choice, but it was a lot easier for everyone, and it supports tablets out-of-the-box.
1. You must join a group to see its contents. This puts a stupid "{user} joined the room" message in the room for everyone to see. Channel membership is anonymous.
2. Channels generate a public feed that doesn't require any special software to read from (see Durov: https://t.me/s/durov). Matrix requires a client of some kind, all clients are clunky at best and none have a public view.
3. Channels support millions of readers. Matrix rooms literally cannot do this, and rooms frequently get out of sync due to federation.
Anyhow, people don't write off Telegram because it's Russian, but for many legitimate reasons.
There are indications that it could be much closer to the Russian government than they pretend, but that matters not because Russians are bad people, but because the current government of Russia is an aggressive dictatorship.
The Ukrainian military literally used Telegram for years and now literally banned it.
Maybe in part for this Ukrainian article: https://texty.org.ua/articles/112347/eight-signsof-danger-te...
Even assuming they are fully legitimate today, if this ever changes and somebody gets access to their infrastructure, they immediately get a treasure trove of historical messages.
> There are indications that it could be much closer to the Russian government than they pretend
Can you give more details, please? I'm using telegram a lot and want to know if there is something...
https://kyivindependent.com/kremlingram-investigation-durov/
despite endless claims he's in exile
So I'm just gonna assume you work for Internet Research Agency and tell you to maybe bugger off.
That's fine. I write it off because it by default leaks all of your content and metadata to the server, and then I ask why, and who is learning all that information and I do not like the answer.
>Seems like many people do this when it comes to russian tech
Yeah as a Finn it's not very hard to distrust Russia.
> Even if it was a russian op (its not the Ukrainian military literally used telegram for years)
You didn't prove anything with this, if anything, the fact that Ukraine banned using Telegram on the state officials devices, speaks the exact opposite: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78dwepw95do
>the russian government cant touch me
If it's a Russian op, they're collecting your entire life, your political opinions, your relationship issues, everything, in search of kompromat that they'd use to coerce you during recruiting.
one long time Firefox contributor have been for a couple years now removing every part of the --noremote option. even botching (Ooops!) the console notice that the flag was no-op some time ago.
What's this now? I'm using that to handle multiple profiles and haven't noticed anything breaking
try it, start with --noremote. you will get the vulnerable rpc/dbus listener. start another "firefox --noremote https://example.com" and it will open on the previous process. ha!
yeah, and you never got a warning about that option going way uh? that's why I'm 80% sure it was malicious. too many convenient mistakes.
this is the pattern that was abuses in the telegram hack. and this is what security conscious people implemented --notemote in firefox to close this vector. which is gone.
If you only want to make a software single-instance, you typically simply use a named mutex on Windows.
In general it only requires *a way* of communicating *some* information, not to "fully control" the other process or to have a port open.
What was abused in the Telegram hack is a hidden feature that shouldn't have existed, and it was even only vulnerable because of a lack of escaping.
Telegram wanting to be single instance means that it has to use some serialization, and it not escaping semicolons enables a part of the attack.
And if you open a Telegram link it will open in the existing instance.
Windows uri handlers actually always create a new process, though; so if you want this single instance behavior, you have to do some check at the start of the process and communicate the uri to the previously running process (as explained in the article).
so why answer?