![]() ![]() It's certainly the most logical step, but far from being straightforward. OK, so the answer is adding end-to-end encryption to both Facebook Messenger and Instagram by default which would make securely delivering a unified communications platform much easier, right? Well, sort of. Why is this so problematical? You only have to look at the car-crash that security of Internet of Things devices is for the answer: security that is bolted on as an afterthought is notoriously flakey and will never be as solid as that which is built in by design. ![]() Yet the two services that already have the open-source protocol in place implement it differently WhatsApp by default, Facebook Messenger as an option. All three implementations of the Signal protocol would need to be identical to ensure seamless and secure end-to-end encrypted messages. This is not just a case of bolting the Signal protocol (as used by both WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger) onto Instagram. Or at least it will be unless the plan is to completely re-engineer all three messaging services from the ground up. ![]() This is harder to achieve, at least in a way that could be thought of as being secure, than it sounds. Will the new platform impose default end-to-end encryption for all users regardless of which service they are actually using? Here's the thing then: what happens if, for example, an Instagram user (or a Facebook Messenger user with secret conversations toggled off) messages a WhatsApp user? There will be an expectation from the WhatsApp user that all their messages are encrypted across the entire communication process, but Instagram messages aren't encrypted at the moment. Of the three messaging services, currently only WhatsApp supports end-to-end encryption by default while Facebook Messenger users need to switch the 'secret conversations' feature on and Instagram users get no such option at all. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |