# Signal vs. Telegram ![[signal5.png]] In the realm of secure messaging apps, Signal and Telegram stand out as popular choices, each with distinct approaches to privacy, security, and usability. While Signal has earned a reputation as the gold standard for encrypted communication, Telegram boasts a larger user base and a feature-rich platform. This blog post compares the two apps across their origins, technical architectures, security models, suitability for government use, and vulnerabilities, concluding with reflections on their roles in the digital landscape as of March 26, 2025. #### Origins and Development Signal’s roots trace back to 2010, when Moxie Marlinspike and Stuart Anderson founded Whisper Systems to develop TextSecure and RedPhone. By 2014, these merged into Signal under Open Whisper Systems, later bolstered by Brian Acton’s 2018 co-founding of the Signal Foundation. Operating as a nonprofit, Signal prioritizes privacy over profit, relying on donations and maintaining a lean, open-source framework. Telegram, conversely, was launched in 2013 by brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov, Russian entrepreneurs who had previously built VK, a major social network. After leaving Russia amid government pressure over VK’s data policies, the Durovs created Telegram as a privacy-focused alternative, funded initially by Pavel’s personal wealth. Based in Dubai since 2017, Telegram operates as a for-profit entity, emphasizing speed, scalability, and features like large group chats. Its development is partially open-source, though its server-side code remains proprietary. #### Technical Foundations and Security Features Signal’s security hinges on its Signal Protocol, an open-source, end-to-end encryption (E2EE) system applied by default to all messages and calls. Using double-ratchet encryption, it ensures forward secrecy—past messages remain secure even if a key is compromised. Signal minimizes metadata, storing only a user’s phone number, account creation date, and last connection time, with all other data (messages, contacts) kept locally on devices. Features like disappearing messages and registration lock enhance its privacy-first design. Telegram employs a custom encryption protocol, MTProto, blending 256-bit AES, 2048-bit RSA, and Diffie-Hellman key exchange. However, E2EE is not default; it’s limited to “Secret Chats,” which users must manually enable, while standard chats and group messages are encrypted only between the client and Telegram’s cloud servers. This cloud-based approach enables seamless syncing across devices but stores data on servers, albeit encrypted. Telegram retains metadata like IP addresses and chat participants, and its proprietary server code cannot be independently audited, raising transparency concerns. #### Security Comparison: Is It Secure? Signal’s default E2EE, minimal data retention, and fully open-source code make it the more secure option for privacy-conscious users. Independent audits, such as those by the University of Oxford in 2023, consistently validate its cryptographic integrity. Its design thwarts mass surveillance, as seen in its resilience during the 2022 Twilio phishing incident, where compromised accounts yielded no message content. Telegram’s security is more nuanced. While MTProto is cryptographically sound, its opt-in E2EE limits protection for most users, who rely on cloud chats without realizing the distinction. Security researchers, including a 2024 X thread by cryptographer Matthew Green, criticize Telegram’s cloud storage, noting that server breaches—though unproven—could expose data. Telegram’s 2021 handling of a Russian disinformation campaign, where it complied with takedown requests, also suggests potential cooperation with authorities, contrasting with Signal’s staunch refusal to retain logs (e.g., its 2016 subpoena response yielding only basic account data). For the average user, Signal offers superior out-of-the-box security. Telegram’s strength lies in usability and scale—supporting groups of up to 200,000 members—but its privacy model is weaker unless users proactively use Secret Chats. #### Suitability for Government Use Signal’s robust encryption appeals to government officials seeking secure communication, as evidenced by its use in the Trump administration’s 2025 military strike discussions. However, its lack of accreditation for classified data, limited auditing capabilities, and reliance on personal devices make it unsuitable for official government systems like SIPRNet. The Pentagon’s March 2025 memo explicitly cautions against its use for sensitive unclassified data, citing phishing risks and legal concerns over disappearing messages. Telegram fares worse for government use. Its cloud-based storage and lack of default E2EE render it vulnerable to server-side attacks or legal demands, a concern amplified by its proprietary server code. While its large group functionality suits public coordination (e.g., Ukraine’s 2022 war updates), it lacks the isolation and control required for classified operations. Neither app meets the stringent standards of government-grade systems, but Signal’s design aligns more closely with privacy needs, albeit insufficiently for official mandates. #### Can It Be Hacked? Signal’s encryption has never been directly broken, with vulnerabilities tied to device compromise (e.g., malware or physical access). The 2024 desktop key exposure flaw, patched swiftly, and 2025 telecom breaches like Salt Typhoon highlight endpoint risks, not protocol weaknesses. Signal’s small attack surface—minimal server data—limits hacking potential. Telegram’s cloud architecture presents a larger target. While no major server breach has been confirmed, its centralized storage raises theoretical risks, especially given un-auditable server code. Client-side attacks, like the 2023 Android exploit allowing chat access via malicious APKs, and phishing scams on X in 2025, show Telegram’s susceptibility mirrors Signal’s endpoint risks, but its cloud reliance adds a layer of exposure. Secret Chats mitigate this, yet their optional nature limits their impact. #### Reflection: Signal vs. Telegram in Today’s World As of March 26, 2025, Signal and Telegram serve distinct niches. Signal, with 70 million users, is the choice for privacy purists—journalists, activists, and individuals in oppressive regimes—offering unmatched security for one-to-one or small-group communication. Its nonprofit ethos and transparency resonate in an era of distrust toward tech giants, though its minimalist feature set and device-specific storage deter casual adopters. Telegram, boasting over 900 million users, thrives as a versatile platform for communities, businesses, and public figures. Its speed, cloud syncing, and features like channels (e.g., used by Brazil’s government in 2024 floods) prioritize usability over absolute security. Yet, its privacy compromises—cloud storage, optional E2EE—make it less defensible against surveillance or sophisticated threats, a trade-off evident in its ban in China versus Signal’s broader acceptance. In today’s world, marked by telecom hacks and state surveillance, Signal is the safer bet for confidential communication, while Telegram excels for scale and accessibility. Governments should eschew both for classified needs, favoring bespoke systems, but for unclassified or personal use, Signal’s edge is clear. Users must weigh their priorities: uncompromising privacy with Signal, or functionality with Telegram—each a tool shaped by its creators’ vision, thriving in a digital landscape that demands both. - [Telegram](https://telegram.org) - [Signal](https://signal.org) - [[Advanced Data Protection for iCloud]] - [[Exploring iMessage Backups-Technical Details, Security Implications, and Privacy Considerations]] - [[Signal vs iMessage]] - [[Signal vs WhatsApp]] - [[The Signal Communication App-Origins, Security, and Implications for Government Use in the Modern Era]] - [[The Tech Pastor|home]] ◦ [[Contact]]