Re: Telegram privacy fails again.

[notspam () mm st]

> IMO, If Whatsapp/Telegram wanted to take this functionality more seriously,
> they'd need to be writing the images to disk in an encrypted form from the
> outset. It increases the overhead of display, and wouldn't necessarily stop
> forensic recovery etc, but it would mean that other apps couldn't simply
> watch the directory and upload anything which appears in it in a usable
> form. That's a whole other can of worms though as it's another set of keys
> to manage.

There's no way to take this functionality seriously - the feature is a
joke. A privacy feature centered around trusting another user's
node to delete a file you already sent them is silly. Unfortunately,
it seems like nobody gets this; even Matrix clients are supposed to
have message redaction soon.

The original email didn't contain a security vulnerability (remember
the name of this list?)  - it was blogspam. It didn't belong here for
the same reason that you don't see Snapchat bugs on this list.