Our valued sponsor

Pavel Durov Arrested France

Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
Well, this thread is interesting and nothing we discussed is by even the most relaxed definiton off-topic.

Majority of secure communication applications for any platform is either not secure because of the design errors or is intentionaly honeypot. Sometimes they have secondary benefit, beside being COMINT source.

Regarding the comparison between advertized application and Mr Durov's Telegram, the security is more close to absolute zero for both.

I'm not in position to disclose details beside the fact I consider indiscretions as non professionalism. Though, I'll offer to the community a glimpse regarding similarities between Telegram and Simplex - and most importantly, key difference - lack of the stakeholders and abundance of them.

Namely, Simplex is designed by Mr Poberezkin - another Russian citizen who also got Western citizenship - in this case a British one. The company Simplex Chat Ltd is a UK one and is funded by Village Global VC fund

https://www.villageglobal.vc
The lack of alliances were detrimental to Mr Durov's business where the abundance of them will greatly contribute to interests of Mr Poberezkin's sponsors.

Hence, conlusion related to free lunch is a universal one as that's the nature of this game.
So, no specifics, then. I am all for hearing criticism of SimpleX because, as it stands, in my opinion, it's the best solution if you want an E2E messaging app with no real identifiable info. Open source, audited. I'd like to know why I might be wrong on that...

But I've read similar versions of your post on Twitter hundreds of times, and all they do is cite the same arguments that apply to basically every aspect of privacy and security. "pysop", "honeypot", "look who funds it" without going further. I think the funding aspect was addressed quite well here: Why privacy becoming a norm requires venture funding.

Yes, they are all starting points for valid arguments, but without elaboration, they are rather thin on the ground. Where is the specific evidence or technical details about SimpleX? And how can you say you're not in a position to disclose details?
 
This may be off-topic.

So, no specifics, then. I am all for hearing criticism of SimpleX because, as it stands, in my opinion, it's the best solution if you want an E2E messaging app with no real identifiable info. Open source, audited. I'd like to know why I might be wrong on that...

I respect your opinion despite that you have a wrong one. Time will prove that to you. And, I wish you without detrimental consequences.

Auditing and standards' certification doesn't mean anything :rolleyes: It's as accounting - can be quite creative fin4774"

But I've read similar versions of your post on Twitter hundreds of times, and all they do is cite the same arguments that apply to basically every aspect of privacy and security. "pysop", "honeypot", "look who funds it" without going further. I think the funding aspect was addressed quite well here: Why privacy becoming a norm requires venture funding.

The only solid fact and a proof per se is a money trail. Qui bono? Forget emotions, ideology and religion.

Yes, they are all starting points for valid arguments, but without elaboration, they are rather thin on the ground. Where is the specific evidence or technical details about SimpleX? And how can you say you're not in a position to disclose details?

My businesses are for so long in the game that we became the witness of failed claims and honeypots - Encrochat, SkyECC, ΛNØM, EnnetCom, BlackPhone and other iterations.

COMSEC isn't an area where some random people without appropriate background and understanding - software engineers and designers create a software that looks and sounds secure and declare it as open source - should be anywhere near.

On the other side are formidable adversaries in SIGINT and COMINT areas so those wannabes always get a crash course about maturing.

Or, vultures sense the flesh and come to feast.

There are serious developers and companies in COMSEC, but there is no advertizing as we serve a niche clients - governments, persons and organizations with security needs - where clients send a requirements and needs - not the other way arround with offers.

I can say that I'm not in position to disclose details as I'm not in that position ;) Sometimes that's related to professionalism, often to NDA, seldom to internal interests. In some cases, it may be related to an ongoing investigation that we do not want to impede. In this case, it's related to internal interest.
 
You use a lot of words to say nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I dont mind you saying nothing. Its just not needed to write a chapter about it if you can sum it up in one short sentence.

"No" is a perfectly fine answer to any question for that matter.

You may say that for a lot of people here, but, thank you for notifying me. I've made a mental note to myself.

Though, I said much. Perhaps, you haven't read it thouroughly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dany
I’m sure there’s an army of lawyers ready to help him do a wealth transfer out of that mess.
There! I fixed it for you! smi(&% rof/%

So, no specifics, then. I am all for hearing criticism of SimpleX because, as it stands, in my opinion, it's the best solution if you want an E2E messaging app with no real identifiable info. Open source, audited. I'd like to know why I might be wrong on that...

But I've read similar versions of your post on Twitter hundreds of times, and all they do is cite the same arguments that apply to basically every aspect of privacy and security. "pysop", "honeypot", "look who funds it" without going further. I think the funding aspect was addressed quite well here: Why privacy becoming a norm requires venture funding.

Yes, they are all starting points for valid arguments, but without elaboration, they are rather thin on the ground. Where is the specific evidence or technical details about SimpleX? And how can you say you're not in a position to disclose details?
Breathe in. Relax. They are NOT after you or me! They are NOT looking at our communications. They have NO interest...unless WE give them a reason for it!

I went to trial against the US scumbags with the help of the <<<juice>>>, and the EU. During the trial, the prosecutor said this: "Imagine a company running a motorcycle manufacturing business, and we can't find ANY record of banks, motorcycle parts, employees, buyers, suppliers, etc etc. The defendant did exactly this. How do we know? Because his OWN lawyers told us and the courts!"...
And that, my friend @polonieth, was when I fired every attorney right there in court and went pro se! The only elbow attorney I had was the former US federal prosecutor (may he RIP), who took me in when I was a teenager when I arrived in the US for college. I mentioned it before. He was my General Advisor in the 1980s (NOT academic advisor).

I blasted their witnesses and agents OUT of the f*cking water! Mentally & verbally abused them! Made them look like absolute f*cking morons! Caught them in one lie after another!

So, relax. They got NOTHING! They didn't have ONE single piece of evidence! They didn't need to. All they need are "witnesses" willing to testify under oath (under the penalty of "perjury," but they will NEVER be prosecuted) to what "they saw us do" and "what we told them we did."

The gang members working under the ruse of "government" are ALL embezzlers, pathological liars, and bullies! They are scammers and liars spending hours at the office and on the job to justify defrauding the taxpayers and the state of their salary!

These are the DUMBEST MoFos you will ever meet! Useless vermins!

I'll give you just ONE EXAMPLE, out of thousands.... (I keep a diary...remember?)

This is Jack! Jack "was" a Senior US District Court Federal Judge! I've known Jack for decades! Jack has dished out innumerous life sentences to drug offenders and others for non-violent crimes. Jack has sentenced several people to DEATH! ...and get this...Jack is one of the "nicest" of these MoFos that I know.... stupi#21

1725023400809.png


This is what Jack's buddy and good friend, Senior US District Judge Thomas Hogan (and professional neighbor...they had adjacent offices for decades and went on vacation together), who sentenced Jack to:

...wait for it...

1725024282063.png


They have given people NOT part of the "DOJ" (=Department of Just Us dev56""" ) life sentences for the same things Jack was caught doing. It was a long list of federal crimes. They allowed him to plead a lesser charge and, by extension, sent a message to other federal judges that the FBI/DOJ would let them plead the lowest punishable crime and drop all other charges. ;)

I can go on and on, but why? :rolleyes:

You get the picture.... ;)

  1. As long as you are NOT Pavel giving interviews and snitching on all the government agents around the world trying to bribe you for a backdoor,
  2. or Andrew Tate spewing the truth about the Cabal,
  3. or Snowden,
  4. or Assange, you have NOTHING to worry about!
  5. Don't EVER sue the government and their Cabal, etc., either. Just don't! Any lawyer or "legal pundit" who tells you about your rights is revealing ***AND*** confessing to you that he is the Judas Iscariot in your life! Dispose of him quickly and swiftly! Take NO prisoners, as he has ALREADY identified you as his mark for a wealth transfer. This "lawyer" is more than one million times worse than an armed and violent robber with intent to kill!
  6. Ad infinitum...

PS. Who do you think introduced me to strippers when I was a teenager in the US? :rolleyes: Yeah...most strippers are "Confidential Informants" of LE. Most escorts, too! So, be careful who you "confide" in. coo-:!y
 
Last edited:
i am no expert here, but i did read a few articles online
@mraleph gave you the best hint about what's the most secure way, he mentioned that he offers a device. not just software, it's a device.

when it comes encryption, science applies.
there are many types of encyrption, and the best ones are known to public, since they are developed at universities. so far there is no proof that they can be decrypted without a valid key or brute forced.

the weak link here is a device that holds all the data unencrypted.

when it comes to audits, yes they are like financial audits...you can even be more creative.
which version are you auditing, are you sure that's the exact version actually running on server compiled...

@0xDEADBEEF and @mraleph it is a pleasure to have you guys here!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jafo and 0xDEADBEEF
The conversation fanned out just a little, but is still very much related to Durov imo.

In many cases it’s what you read in between the lines that is helping your personal situation. And everyone of us reads something different based on personal wants and needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mraleph
The most secure device? Today? There isn’t one

Perhaps a spade and a cave

The Israelis for example hacked into a room just using the light system then jumped from that to a server

The Americans are listening all the time and watching from above

I had to clear up some code created a decade ago by a chap called Ken former NSA

They can code algos but their code is as spaghetti as their brains
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GPT and jafo
Looks like you do recordings and flow charts for all discussions on here, with posting this lol
It keeps my mind fresh and on point! Some discussions I do NOT even get into because I have NOTHING of (credible) value to add, so I just watch and learn. ;)
I would shoot myself if I gave someone the "wrong directions" and they ended up losing/wasting money...or worse...their freedom! stupi#21

That's why I appreciate everyone's doom-and-gloom insights, especially yours, about subjects I know NOTHING about. If you ONLY knew how much sh1t I was able to circumvent and "fly over" due to the myriad of warnings on OCT... ;) ange¤%&

Warren Buffett stay out of trouble 2.jpg


So, a HUGE "Thank You" to all of you who have warned others about the "speed traps" ahead (by the corrupt MAFIA "in disguise")! coo-:!y
 
It goes beyond that. It's the whole TELEGRAM ecosystem and values. Without privacy, then just stay on Messenger, IG or whatsapp..
It is the same with Discord, a whole ecosystem has been built on something that has been flawed from the moment it was created. The Telegram UX is amazing, which (unfortunately often) means that security + privacy is lacking.

1725115916973.png
 
Just use Line...

Or better yet, use WeChat...


Its called privacy arbitrage.

I know all about privacy, i built a rather successful zero knowledge email service back in the day.
NGL, in some of your writings, I "thought" you might have been Ladar Levison...the writing styles are almost identical, except for the British spellings, and then it dawned on me that you would NOT be caught DEAD in "Disneyland" rof/% smi(&%

1725117393091.png


Also, Ladar still lives in Dallas, Texas. He's a great guy—truly a guy with unshakeable morals and ethics! It's NOT subjective morals with him! I would subscribe to any service or product he sells. I wouldn't use it, though, smi(&% but it's a great way to support a guy who stood against TYRANTS and held his own without throwing anyone under the bus!

When push came to shove, Ladar showed the world what he is truly made of...and he paid dearly!

But as a hero of mine would say: There are NO prosthetics for an amputated soul! ;)
 
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.