A 10-month Commerce Department probe concluded Meta could view all WhatsApp messages in unencrypted form
The fact that Trump’s own goon uses Signal and not WhatsApp should probably tell you all you need to know about using WhatsApp.
Here’s the original reporting, instead of another website’s summary of Bloomberg’s actual report:
So it sounds like the agent was investigating allegations, from content moderation contractors, that Meta could access the contents of WhatsApp messages, and came to the conclusion that yes, Meta could.
There are a few possibilities here.
- Meta does have full plain text access to all Whatsapp messages, but guards that access very closely. Although the clients seem to generate E2EE keys for each session, somehow they’re leaking those keys to Meta’s servers somewhere, and the closed source code sufficiently hides that so that there’s no whistleblower or security researcher able to detect this definitively.
- Meta has a secret wiretap functionality where they can compromise the E2EE keys somehow, but uses it only for narrow cases. This helps keep the functionality secret, because security researchers and other reviewers may never see the functionality in action.
- Meta allows users to report objectionable content in the threads they’re already part of. The reporting function either forwards the E2EE key itself, or all the plaintext data, that gives content moderators access to the underlying message contents. The contractor whistleblowers and the federal agent investigating these allegations simply got it wrong, and misunderstood the technical process of how the plaintext messages end up in the content moderator’s possession.
Meta claims that it’s #3. They acknowledge they have plaintext access to messages when a party to the thread presses the report button.
This unnamed federal agent believes it’s #1, after 10 months of investigation, and sent out an email to other investigators that they should look into that possibility.
I’m skeptical of #1, simply because I don’t believe that conspiracies to keep that kind of stuff secret can be maintained. It’s not just that there would be technically skilled whistleblowers who have actual access to the code (not the non-technical content moderator contractors who review the content), but a weakness in such an important and widely used protocol would attract all sorts of hackers, state sponsored or otherwise.
But option #2 might explain everything we’ve seen so far. Full wiretap capability that is rarely used and very tightly controlled.
Thanks for the sane interpretation of the situation!
It’s decided. No more arms deals on Whatsapp for this guy.
Just assume anything you’re writing online, on any app, any website, any social media platform… ANYTHING is being tracked now.
We learned from the FBI’s disclosure of the Guthrie kidnapping video that every camera and microphone are surveilling you and feeding that data into a government database without a warrant, so why would you think your apps are doing anything different?
No. Shit.
People who say Facebook (now Meta) paid $21 billion (with a B) for WhatsApp to be charitable. Even though the original creators have distanced themselves from it after the acquisition.
Fun fact: every forum running phpBB, Invision, or vBulletin (as in, traditional Internet forums) can read your DMs in plaintext. They’re unencrypted in the SQL database. However, the forum’s Admin Control Panel (ACP) does not provide this functionality. All three have mods that add it in. So imagine you run a forum. You have a hidden forum where only your mods and admins can interact. No one else can even see it. You could have a whole other one that is just all the DMs. I’m not sure about social networks. But I know if you have command-line access to the SQL database, you can query a user and see everything that user has put in the database. Public messages… and private ones. So a lot of the forums started saying “Personal messages” or “Direct messages” instead of “Private messages” because they were never private.
Disbelieve anyone who says they can’t see your private or personal messages.
I can’t see your private or personal messages.
I can confirm this, I used to run several phpbb and (pirated) vbulletin juggalo forums and when I found out this was possible I read everyone’s DMs for funzies.
Lotttts of requests for noodz.
Since you are a self proclaimed professional, what percentage of nude requests were answered positively, and is it as close to zero as I expect?
Pirated vBulletin. I sure didn’t have the sack for that. I figure, pirated software running on a server, especially if it’s not your hardware (and self hosting wasn’t an option for me back then) is kind of dangerous.
When I found out I could get at the DMs in an Invision board I was running for a minute, I made a post letting everyone know, and worked it into the thing you agree to when you sign up. I made it clear that I wasn’t good with SQL and it wasn’t easy to read them, but that I did have that access and to not use our DMs for anything you wouldn’t want someone to be able to see.
I assume most of the noods requests were from the juggaloes to the juggalettes exclusively? Or did it go both ways? Never cared much for ICP, though “The Amazing Jekyll Brothers” had some cool songs on it (“Everybody Rize,” “I Stab People,” “Mad Professor,” and maybe a couple others)… but the fandom? Absolutely wild. Even if I thought ICP straight up sucked, I’d have to admit the fandom is awesome.
I sorta recently (couple years ago) learned that some US states actually brand juggaloes a gang. Like it’s illegal to be one. That’s wild to me. I don’t think Deadheads ever got the same treatment, and, same thing, different genre.
I’m just here to satisfy my confirmation bias, but my question all along has been this: how does Meta simultaneously satisfy their claims of both E2EE and content moderation on WhatsApp? I can’t say that I’ve done anything even close to a deep dive on the topic, but those two things seem mutually exclusive.
You can actually report a message to WhatsApp within the app. If you report the message it then the full text gets sent to WhatsApp.
That’s a little disingenuous…
- You receive an encrypted message.
- You decrypt the message.
- You report the message.
- You forward the decrypted message.
When you send a message, no E2EE scheme can prevent your recipient from forwarding the decrypted message to a third party.
It’s really important for people to understand that E2EE cannot protect the message portions that aren’t between the ends themselves. The best encryption in the world can’t help you if the person you’re talking to is an undercover cop, because that “end” can do with the plaintext whatever they want, including record/store/forward the plaintext of any messages they then encrypt and send, or any messages they receive and then decrypt.
That’s not a flaw of the E2EE protocol itself, but is a limit to the scope of protection that E2EE provides.
Well, yeah, you can’t control other people. Even if you use a walkie-talkie, they can still record your voice with a device. Ideally you should only be talking about safely publishable content, or with mature-enough individuals. We ultimately must settle for good-enough…
So… anyone with access to the report API can read any message they want?
Any reported message ? Back when I was doing anti spam at my ISP we could read reported spam from our customers. Obviously not all mails from / to the customers. That would be way disproportionate.
If this is true:
If you report the message it then the full text gets sent to WhatsApp.
That means there’s a software switch that dumps a plaintext copy of a supposedly encrypted message when flipped.
Therefore, all you need to read any WhatsApp message is the ability to flag the message as “reported”, and access to wherever the plaintext copies get sent.
Considering how often security is an afterthought for corporations, the access part is probably easy.
The easiest implementation of this is that the recipient of an infringing message flags it from its local client. At that point it’s not encrypted if their claim of e2ee is true.
It also means that only parties involved in the message exchange can flag / report them.
Corporations are often not so monolithic ; the guys doing abuse are likely not the one who try to milk users (looking at you marketing).
I don’t want to defend whatsapp, but if messages are actually properly end to end encrypted, but one of the recipients (one of the ends) knowingly shares it (e.g. with the report function), that is still end to end encryption.
don’t be surprised if signal or matrix implements this. I’m strongly against scanning messages, but if the recipient willfully decides so, they should be able to share a message with moderators. that would be an actual tool against actual pedophiles, and scammers.
but this can only work safely if the client is not sending the decrypted message, because it could modify it, but instead it sends the decryption keys for it. both signal and matrix are regularly rotating the keys, so it wouldn’t grant the moderators to read all messages, but it would grant them the ability to see what was actually sent. with that the client should also show how far into the past messages will be revealed to moderators, so they can decide if that’s ok for them.Yup we agree on that. This pattern is actually the most sensible approach to support privacy. Whatever happens in transmission.
That means there’s a software switch that dumps a plaintext copy of a supposedly encrypted message when flipped.
Kinda, sorta, but no, not really. What’s happening is that the recipient is decrypting the message. When you report the message, you include a cleartext copy with your report.
The “switch” you are talking about is in the same app that is doing the decryption. For the bad actor to toggle that “switch”, they would have to control the app.
For the bad actor to toggle that “switch”, they would have to control the app.
Are you talking about physical control? Regardless, it’s closed-source… There is nothing that says they can’t also generate the keys on the other end that they had your devices generate. Outside of open source code that’s buildable from source, they can claim whatever they want about lack of access to switches.
Technically true.
However, doing so would be perpetrating a fraud. If they denied the capability you’re talking about in response to a warrant or subpoena, someone would be in contempt.
I don’t know if any corpo actually cares about such things, but I know that if you or I were to do this, we’d quickly find ourselves broke and possibly in prison.
I don’t particularly know much about this specific topic but, it would be trivial for them to read what’s seen in the app. The encrypted part is only during transfer of a message, your app is still decrypting it to plain texts, and meta can just read the message at that point.
So the truth is they store messages encrypted. But what they also do is storing the private keys for those messages.
Meaning they technically do it. But it’s like locking the door for someone who also has the keys.
Creating the secure key pairs used for true E2EE requires a mathematical foundation of true randomness, which can only be achieved on a device by working with the OS, through an API call, to get a random seed that includes pseudorandom numbers from the device’s sensors. There was a post a while back where a dev used ADB to read the API calls used during WhatsApp account setup that showed that no such calls were made, meaning the keys were either totally predictable, or were actually generated by Meta themselves.
When I read the article about cloudflare using lava lamps (and other things at other locations) to create randomness I had no idea it had to be that crazy to be random.
It actually doesn’t need to be so elaborate. Even a video camera with the lens cap on generates more than enough entropy. Your phone can mix together predictable but unique variations - time of day, free memory, CPU serial number, battery level - with less predictable physical sensory - light level, gyroscope, barometer, last touch points, nearby MAC addresses - to create far more on-board randomness than anyone realistically needs.
That said, the whole Cloudflare lava lamp thing is very cool and also gets people talking.
Even a video camera with the lens cap on generates more than enough entropy
interesting. Never heard this before. How is the entropy created? Wont all the values for the pixels be near zero (extemely simplified)?
definitely cool, i want a wall like that. it would be a lot better than the one i kept tipping over and burning shit with in my tiny room at the time
Interesting! Is the post available somewhere?
“The claim that WhatsApp can access people’s encrypted communications is patently false,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said. He added that the bureau had already “disavowed this purported investigation, calling its own employee’s allegations unsubstantiated.”
I can’t help but notice that in response to people’s concern that Meta may be able to read people’s messages, the Meta spokesperson responds that WhatsApp can’t read them. A little bit of administrative juggling on Meta’s end so that the team with access to the messages doesn’t fall within the WhatsApp department, and both claims could be true.
It’s likely the cloud backups they can read. Encrypted archives are hard to sync across devices while still keeping the same level of security. I always advise against it if you don’t have a good reason to do it.
It’s also all but confirmed that they use on-device keyword recognition for targeted advertising. So if the app can phone home for some keywords, then it can phone home for anything.
Yeah, there are lots of ways for this to be true but misleading:
The communications are not encrypted if they have the keys.
The encrypted communications are not the people’s. By the TOS everything is the property of WhatsApp and they can access their own ‘Business Records’ perfectly legally.
A third party, like a federal agency, isn’t WhatsApp. (WhatsApp can also voluntarily give their ‘Business Records’ to said agencies without warrant or subpoena.)
Meta isn’t WhatsApp.
An internal project with an undisclosed codename isn’t WhatsApp.
Nitpicking; even if they have the keys, the messages can be encrypted. It’s just worthless as they can now decrypt them.
Sure, when they say WhatsApp can’t access the encrypted messages they could mean that Meta/another internal group has access to the encrypted messages and they decrypt them in order to provide them to WhatsApp/whoever.
(Obviously, as someone pointed out, this is all assuming that he’s telling the truth in some legalistic way and not just flat out lying.)
My favorite option is that they don’t access the encrypted communications, they access messages before encryption takes place and send copies home for safe keeping. With a closed source client they can do anything they want to the plaintext even if they handle the ciphertext appropriately.
Yeah, that or either of the ends is compromised by one of the various commercial spyware which offers zero-click installation of their software or the person you’re talking to is intentionally recording the messages.
End-to-End encryption only protects you from someone eavesdropping on the communication on the line. It doesn’t secure the endpoints or make the participants trustworthy.
Which end is the encrypted end lmao
But Facebook/“Meta” would never lie.
Oopsie! Hang on, they even lie to lawmakers in case buying them off fails? Bummer!
Seriously: this company needs to be scoured from the face of the earth.
Mergers: Commission fines Facebook €110 million for providing misleading information about WhatsApp takeover - Brussels, 18 May 2017
Classic
Profit made from yet more abuse of user data: 500m EUR
Cost ofmisleadinglying to lawmakers: 110m EUR
Net profit: 390m EUR
“We got 'em good, boys! I’m sure they’re never going to try that again!”:’( poor general public
Are you telling me that the company that hosts “free” not propaganda services and has been caught repeatedly stealing all possible data including data about women and presumably girls’ periods and has been caught in one of the largest data manipulation scandals this century could be betraying my trust with their “vawwy vawwy pwivate and vawwy vawwy encwypted” closed source and again operated by the most sinister motherfuckers of all time messaging app???
I. Am. Shocked.
I’m also looking for a bridge on the cheap if you guys have any leads.
C’mon. It’s not that hard. You’re making the assumption that Andy Stone is telling the truth, with a gotchya astrict.
What if…the big business just…LIES???
The best lies have some kind of truth in them. Half truths are way more effective than complete falsehoods.
a gotchya astrict
Asterisk? This little fella? *
Nah, probably meant the other little fella - Asterix the Gaul.
Then they might get in trouble for false advertising.
In what world do you live where billionsires face actual consequences?
Worst case scenario, Meta pays a small fine, and doesn’t even blink. The day just goes on.
I mean yeah, but they’d usually not pay even a small fine (or pay for legal proceedings), so it’s a lot more efficient to use conveniently placed loopholes.
GDPR has entered the chat
…assuming the EU representatives have some balls
Let’s hope!!
I never assumed that this presumed “end to end encryption” was secure in any way. The key exchange either runs over Meta servers, and they just log them, or the client software simply surrenders the key (maybe always, maybe on demand) together with the data stream that still runs over Meta servers.
I also never assumed it was fully secure either. Like sure it could be secure to hackers since they would still need the keys, but if anyone ever thought Meta was somehow not going to allow themselves access is just crazy and I am shocked anyone thought differently. On top of this they absolutely share all data with the government, im just not sure if it’s by request or full access anytime.
Sadly, everyone i know still uses it so im kind of forced to but at the same time the chats are all dumb anyway so whatever and enjoy reading them Meta employees.
They can log anything they want and have nothing useful, if the encryption protocol is sound.
Have a look at how TLS is designed, if you want to know more.I know my way around cryptography, therefor I am skeptical. If push comes to shove, they can simply command the Whatsapp App to silently surrender the keys. Nobody would know, it is a closed source app and protocol, and they can hide what they are doing inside the (probably) TLS encrypted stream.
You can have the soundest encryption in the world but if they have access to the keys it doesn’t matter, they can see everything.
But the key exchange is not the issue then.
Access to private keys is.
If the host system, on which the key exchange runs, is compromised, you’re toast.Where’s the private key? I can get a new phone, log with WhatsApp and download all the historical messages without intruducing any additional password or key.
I assume they have all the required data too.
@Railcar8095 @zergtoshi actually is not my exlerience with whatsapp, since I have the backups disable, everytime I change phones I lost all my conversations. But since whatsapp is closed source, the app can indeed use encryption to comunicate p2p, but I will allways assume that the key is logged by meta, “just in case”
Sounds like a compromised phone in the sense that it doesn’t protect (and instead transmit) the private key.
That’s not the phones fault, but how WhatsApp works
How is a phone not compromised if it hosts apps that play into the hands of evil actors?
The most important question to ask when evaluating end-to-end encryption: who manages the keys?
If Facebook manages all of the keys and is responsible for telling which public key belongs to who, then of course Facebook can read every message.
oh lol. the trust chain is harder and harder to verify these days. i miss the good old days where I would write emails in vi and encrypt with gpg.
I still write emails with vi. but I lost touch with the one other friend I had who knew how to use gpg 😂😂😂
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
Is there an ELI5, foolproof, step-by-step tutorial? I tried Kleopatra on my own and was so completely befuddled; why is that, like, literally the only app out there in the whole world for PGP or GPG or whatever? Shouldn’t there be dozens of such encoders?
It heavily depends in your usecase but if you want to use gpg to encrypt emails and dont want to do it all in the terminal i really recommend using Thunderbird it integrates gpg very well and makes it mostly seamless.
Other than that afaik Kleopatra is the only standalone GUI for gpg simply because most of the time gpg is integrated in workflows (simply using the cli interface vor gpg libraries) and plain gpg for simple tex/file encryption/signing is just not a usecase.many people have
Cory Doctorow still uses pgp if you email him, I think his key is on his website, IIRC
even better - as far as I am aware the client isn’t open (and even if it were, is your installed build from the same source?).
so, even if the keys are local only, who says there isn’t a hidden API that simply sends locally decrypted content back to a remotely calling endpoint?
Or steganographically leaks back the keys …
thought it was proper e2e
https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/
but if whatsapp owns both ends, what is stopping them from just reading the decrypted text? i duno crypto good enough
That, and if WhatsApp has the keys, then no amount of encryption is going to help.
If I remember, the allegation was that they did keep all the keys and many employees could request them to decrypt specific sessions.
If you can’t see the code (closed source) then treat it as they’re lying and it isn’t end to end encrypted
If you still use faecesbook products, you’re an idiot.
I’m gonna borrow FaecesBook from you - that’s hilarious!
my brain automatically makes it faecesbook now. I’ve been saying it for a decade or more.
I guess you don’t live in Europe, you can’t escape it here.
bold of you to assume meta respect data privacy, they have been all in on datamining for a while aready
Settle down. There’s nothing to see here. Move along quietly and please remain calm… /s
And here I thought the E2EE of Whatsapp was based on the one developed by Signal or at least so they say.
But I guess it’s hard to inspect anything, if it’s no open source software.
I’m so glad there’s SIgnal and a lot of my contacts use it.
Back when it was called Textsecure it was a different story.
