Hubbry Logo
End-to-end encryptionEnd-to-end encryptionMain
Open search
End-to-end encryption
Community hub
End-to-end encryption
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
End-to-end encryption
End-to-end encryption
End-to-end encryption
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Under end-to-end encryption, no third parties like platforms and service providers can decrypt messages, dramatically reducing attack surface.

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only the sender and intended recipient can read the messages. No one else, including the system provider, telecom providers, Internet providers or malicious actors, can access the cryptographic keys needed to read or send messages.[1]

End-to-end encryption prevents data from being read or secretly modified, except by the sender and intended recipients. In many applications, messages are relayed from a sender to some recipients by a service provider. In an E2EE-enabled service, messages are encrypted on the sender's device such that no third party, including the service provider, has the means to decrypt them. The recipients retrieve encrypted messages and decrypt them independently on their own devices. Since third parties cannot decrypt the data being communicated or stored, services with E2EE are better at protecting user data from data breaches and espionage.[2][3]

Computer security experts,[4] digital freedom organizations,[5] and human rights activists[6] advocate for the use of E2EE due to its security and privacy benefits, including its ability to resist mass surveillance.[7] Popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger, and Signal use end-to-end encryption for chat messages, with some also supporting E2EE of voice and video calls. As of May 2025, WhatsApp is the most widely used E2EE messaging service, with over 3 billion users.[8] Meanwhile, Signal with an estimated 70 million users,[9] is regarded as the current gold standard in secure messaging by cryptographers, protestors, and journalists.[10][11][12]

Since end-to-end encrypted services cannot offer decrypted messages in response to government requests, the proliferation of E2EE has been met with controversy.[13][14] Around the world, governments, law enforcement agencies, and child protection groups have expressed concerns over its impact on criminal investigations.[15] As of 2025, some governments have successfully passed legislation targeting E2EE, such as Australia's Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act (2018) and the Online Safety Act (2023) in the UK. Other attempts at restricting E2EE include the EARN IT Act in the US and the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation in the EU.[1][16] Nevertheless, some government bodies such as the UK's Information Commissioner's Office and the US's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have argued for the use of E2EE, with Jeff Greene of the CISA advising that "encryption is your friend" following the discovery of the Salt Typhoon espionage campaign in 2024.[17][18][3]

Definitions

[edit]

End-to-end encryption is a means of ensuring the security of communications in applications like secure messaging.[19] Under E2EE, messages are encrypted on the sender's device such that they can be decoded only by the final recipient's device.[20] In many non-E2EE messaging systems, including email and many chat platforms, messages pass through intermediaries and are stored by a third party service provider,[21] from which they are retrieved by the recipient. Even if messages are encrypted, they are only encrypted 'in transit', and are thus accessible by the service provider.[22] Server-side disk encryption is also distinct from E2EE because it does not prevent the service provider from viewing the information, as they have the encryption keys and can simply decrypt it.

The term "end-to-end encryption" originally only meant that the communication is never decrypted during its transport from the sender to the receiver.[23] For example, around 2003, E2EE was proposed as an additional layer of encryption for GSM[24] or TETRA,[25] in addition to the existing radio encryption protecting the communication between the mobile device and the network infrastructure. This has been standardized by SFPG for TETRA.[26] Note that in TETRA, the keys are generated by a Key Management Centre (KMC) or a Key Management Facility (KMF), not by the communicating users.[27]

Later, around 2014, the meaning of "end-to-end encryption" started to evolve when WhatsApp encrypted a portion of its network,[28] requiring that not only the communication stays encrypted during transport,[29] but also that the provider of the communication service is not able to decrypt the communications—maliciously or when requested by law enforcement agencies. Similarly, messages must be undecryptable in transit by attackers through man-in-the-middle attacks.[7] This new meaning is now the widely accepted one.[30]

Motivations

[edit]

The lack of end-to-end encryption can allow service providers to easily provide search and other features, or to scan for illegal and unacceptable content. However, it also means that content can be read by anyone who has access to the data stored by the service provider, by design or via a backdoor.[31] This can be a concern in many cases where privacy is important, such as in governmental and military communications, financial transactions, and when sensitive information such as health and biometric data are sent. If this content were shared without E2EE, a malicious actor or adversarial government could obtain it through unauthorized access or subpoenas targeted at the service provider.[14]

E2EE alone does not guarantee privacy or security.[32] For example, the data may be held unencrypted on the user's own device or accessed through their own app if their credentials are compromised.

Modern implementations

[edit]

Messaging

[edit]

As of 2025, messaging apps like Signal[10] and WhatsApp[33] are designed to exclusively use end-to-end encryption. Both Signal and WhatsApp use the Signal Protocol. Other messaging apps and protocols that support end-to-end encryption include Facebook Messenger,[34] iMessage,[35] Telegram,[36] Matrix,[37] and Keybase.[38] Although Telegram supports end-to-end encryption, it has been criticized for not enabling it by default, instead supporting E2EE through opt-in "secret chats". As of 2020, Telegram did not support E2EE for group chats and no E2EE on its desktop clients.

In 2022, after controversy over the use of Facebook Messenger messages in an abortion lawsuit in Nebraska, Facebook added support for end-to-end encryption in the Messenger app.[39][40] Writing for Wired, technologist Albert Fox Cahn criticized Messenger's approach to end-to-end encryption, which required the user to opt into E2EE for each conversation and split the message thread into two chats which were easy for users to confuse.[41] In December 2023, Facebook announced plans to enable end-to-end encryption by default despite pressure from British law enforcement agencies.[42]

As of 2016,[43] many server-based communications systems did not include end-to-end encryption.[44] These systems can only guarantee the protection of communications between clients and servers,[45] meaning that users have to trust the third parties who are running the servers with the sensitive content. End-to-end encryption is regarded as safer[46] because it reduces the number of parties who might be able to interfere or break the encryption.[47] In the case of instant messaging, users may use a third-party client or plugin to implement an end-to-end encryption scheme over an otherwise non-E2EE protocol.[48]

Audio and video conferencing

[edit]

Signal and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption for audio and video calls.[citation needed] Since 2020, Signal has also supported end-to-encrypted video calls.[49] In 2024, Discord added end-to-end encryption for audio and video calls, voice channels, and certain live streams.[50] However, they had no plans to implement E2EE for messages.

In 2020, after inquiring Keybase, Zoom announced end-to-end encryption would be limited to paid accounts.[51][52] Following criticism from human rights advocates, Zoom extended the feature to all users with accounts.[53][54] In 2021, Zoom settled an $85M class action lawsuit over past misrepresentation about end-to-end encryption.[55] The FTC confirmed Zoom previously retained access to meeting keys.[56]

Other uses

[edit]

Some encrypted backup and file sharing services provide client-side encryption. Nextcloud,[57][58] MEGA,[59][60] and Cryptpad[citation needed] offer end-to-end encryption of shared files.

The term "end-to-end encryption" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe client-side encryption.[61]

Some non-E2EE systems, such as Lavabit and Hushmail, have described themselves as offering "end-to-end" encryption when they did not.[62]

Law enforcement and regulation

[edit]
Main article: Crypto wars
Unsealed 2021 subpoena addressed to Signal Messenger LLC requesting records for a redacted Signal profile name.
Unsealed 2021 subpoena addressed to Signal Messenger LLC requesting records for a redacted Signal profile name.

In 2022, Facebook Messenger came under scrutiny because the messages between a mother and daughter in Nebraska were used to seek criminal charges in an abortion-related case against both of them. The daughter told the police that she had a miscarriage and tried to search for the date of her miscarriage in her Messenger app. Police suspected there could be more information within the messages and obtained and served a warrant against Facebook to gain access. The messages allegedly mentioned the mother obtaining abortion pills for her daughter and then burning the evidence.[63][64]

While E2EE can offer privacy benefits that make it desirable in consumer-grade services, many businesses have to balance these benefits with their regulatory requirements. For example, many organizations are subject to mandates that require them to be able to decrypt any communication between their employees or between their employees and third parties.[65] This might be needed for archival purposes, for inspection by Data Loss Prevention (DLP) systems, for litigation-related eDiscovery or for detection of malware and other threats in the data streams. For this reason, some enterprise-focused communications and information protection systems might implement encryption in a way that ensures all transmissions are encrypted with the encryption being terminated at their internal systems (on-premises or cloud-based) so they can have access to the information for inspection and processing.

Challenges

[edit]

Man-in-the-middle attacks

[edit]

End-to-end encryption ensures that data is transferred securely between endpoints. But, rather than try to break the encryption, an eavesdropper may impersonate a message recipient (during key exchange or by substituting their public key for the recipient's), so that messages are encrypted with a key known to the attacker. After decrypting the message, the snoop can then encrypt it with a key that they share with the actual recipient, or their public key in case of asymmetric systems, and send the message on again to avoid detection. This is known as a man-in-the-middle attack (MITM).[1][66]

Authentication

[edit]
See also: Key Transparency
Screenshot of the Signal Android app showing a screen labelled "Verify safety number" with a QR code and a series of 60 digits. Below the digits is the note "To verify end-to-end encryption with [redacted], compare the numbers above with their device. You can also scan the code on their device. Learn more". Under the note is a button labelled "Mark as verified".
"Verify safety number" screen on Signal Android 7.43.1

Most end-to-end encryption protocols include some form of endpoint authentication specifically to prevent MITM attacks. For example, one could rely on certification authorities or a web of trust.[67] An alternative technique is to generate cryptographic hashes (fingerprints) based on the communicating users’ public keys or shared secret keys. The parties compare their fingerprints using an outside (out-of-band) communication channel that guarantees integrity and authenticity of communication (but not necessarily secrecy[citation needed]), before starting their conversation. If the fingerprints match, there is, in theory, no man in the middle.[1]

When displayed for human inspection, fingerprints usually use some form of binary-to-text encoding.[68] These strings are then formatted into groups of characters for readability. Some clients instead display a natural language representation of the fingerprint.[69] As the approach consists of a one-to-one mapping between fingerprint blocks and words, there is no loss in entropy. The protocol may choose to display words in the user's native (system) language.[69] This can, however, make cross-language comparisons prone to errors.[70]

In order to improve localization, some protocols have chosen to display fingerprints as base 10 strings instead of more error prone hexadecimal or natural language strings.[71][70]

Modern messaging applications can also display fingerprints as QR codes that users can scan off each other's devices.[71]

Endpoint security

[edit]

The end-to-end encryption paradigm does not directly address risks at the communications endpoints themselves. Each user's computer can still be hacked to steal their cryptographic key (to create a MITM attack) or simply read the recipients’ decrypted messages both in real time and from log files. Even the most perfectly encrypted communication pipe is only as secure as the mailbox on the other end.[1] Major attempts to increase endpoint security have been to isolate key generation, storage and cryptographic operations to a smart card such as Google's Project Vault.[72] However, since plaintext input and output are still visible to the host system, malware can monitor conversations in real time. A more robust approach is to isolate all sensitive data to a fully air gapped computer.[73] However, as Bruce Schneier points out, Stuxnet developed by US and Israel successfully jumped air gap and reached Natanz nuclear plant's network in Iran.[74] To deal with key exfiltration with malware, one approach is to split the Trusted Computing Base behind two unidirectionally connected computers that prevent either insertion of malware, or exfiltration of sensitive data with inserted malware.[75]

Backdoors

[edit]

A backdoor is usually a secret method of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer system, a product, an embedded device, etc.[76] Companies may also willingly or unwillingly introduce backdoors to their software that help subvert key negotiation or bypass encryption altogether. In 2013, information leaked by Edward Snowden showed that Skype had a backdoor which allowed Microsoft to hand over their users' messages to the NSA despite the fact that those messages were officially end-to-end encrypted.[77][78]

Following terrorist attacks in San Bernardino in 2015 and Pensacola in 2019, the FBI requested backdoors to Apple's iPhone software. The company, however, refused to create a backdoor for the government, citing concern that such a tool could pose risk for its consumers’ privacy.[79]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

End-to-end encryption

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is an application of cryptographic mechanisms in communication systems that ensures data confidentiality between endpoints by encrypting messages on the sender's device such that only the designated recipient's device can decrypt them, rendering intermediaries—including service providers—unable to access the plaintext content.
Employing asymmetric cryptography, such as public-key protocols like the Signal Protocol, E2EE has become integral to secure messaging applications including Signal and WhatsApp, where it safeguards user communications against unauthorized surveillance and data breaches.
While enabling robust privacy protections essential for dissidents, journalists, and ordinary users in adversarial environments, E2EE has generated significant controversy by obstructing law enforcement efforts to access encrypted data via warrants, thereby complicating investigations into crimes such as child exploitation and terrorism, with authorities arguing it creates "warrant-proof" spaces that prioritize individual secrecy over collective security.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cryptographic technique applied in communication systems to ensure that only the communicating endpoints can access the plaintext data, excluding intermediaries such as service providers or network operators from decryption capabilities. This method encrypts data on the sender's device prior to transmission and decrypts it solely on the recipient's device, rendering the content inaccessible in transit even if intercepted. At its foundation, E2EE relies on asymmetric cryptography for initial key establishment, where public-private key pairs enable secure negotiation of shared symmetric keys without prior secret exchange. Protocols like Diffie-Hellman key agreement facilitate this process over potentially insecure channels, allowing endpoints to derive a common secret for subsequent symmetric encryption of messages, which offers computational efficiency for large data volumes. and storage occur locally on user devices, preventing central authorities from possessing decryption keys or equivalents. A critical principle is perfect forward secrecy (PFS), achieved through ephemeral key pairs that are discarded after use, ensuring that long-term key compromises do not expose historical communications. mechanisms further enhance this by iteratively deriving new session keys from prior ones, providing ongoing protection against key reuse vulnerabilities. via digital signatures or certificates verifies endpoint identities, mitigating man-in-the-middle attacks, while integrity checks detect tampering. These elements collectively prioritize and causal isolation of data from third-party access, though E2EE does not inherently safeguard metadata or endpoint-compromised devices.

Technical Foundations

End-to-end encryption secures communications by ensuring that data is encrypted on the sender's device using cryptographic keys held exclusively by the communicating parties, rendering intermediaries unable to access or decryption keys. This approach relies on a combining asymmetric and symmetric : asymmetric methods facilitate initial key agreement, while symmetric algorithms handle efficient bulk data . Key exchange in E2EE commonly employs Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) for generating ephemeral shared secrets between parties without direct transmission of the secret itself. Each party computes a public-private key pair; the public keys are exchanged openly, allowing derivation of a symmetric through the ECDH computation. This is then expanded using a like HKDF-SHA256 to produce keys for symmetric , such as AES-256 in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) for both and . To mitigate risks from key compromise, advanced E2EE protocols incorporate via ratcheting mechanisms that derive and discard new keys for each message or session update. The , integral to the , achieves this by chaining a symmetric ratchet for forward secrecy in message streams with a Diffie-Hellman ratchet that introduces fresh periodically, ensuring that compromise of one key does not expose prior or subsequent messages. This dual mechanism provides both forward secrecy and post-compromise security, as subsequent keys remain protected even after a breach. Integrity and authenticity are enforced through message authentication codes (MACs) or authenticated encryption modes, preventing tampering during transit. Standards like NIST-approved AES and ECDH primitives underpin these implementations, with parameters selected to resist known attacks as of 2025, such as those leveraging quantum threats via larger key sizes or hybrid schemes.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Concepts

The earliest documented use of cryptographic techniques dates to approximately 1900 BCE in , where non-standard hieroglyphs were employed in the tomb inscriptions of the nobleman to obscure meanings from unauthorized readers, effectively limiting comprehension to initiated priests or scribes possessing the interpretive key. This substitution-based approach represented an initial effort to protect sensitive religious or administrative information from interception or casual decoding, relying on shared esoteric knowledge between the encoder and intended audience. In , the Spartans utilized the , a device consisting of a wooden around which a strip of was wrapped to inscribe a message, rendering it illegible when unwound. Employed as early as the 5th century BCE during military campaigns, such as the (431–404 BCE), the ensured that only the recipient with a matching-diameter could realign and read the , preventing intermediaries like messengers from accessing the content without the physical key. This method underscored the principle of endpoint-exclusive decryption, where secrecy depended on pre-shared hardware rather than algorithmic complexity. The Roman , a monoalphabetic substitution shift popularized by around 58–50 BCE, involved displacing each letter in the Latin alphabet by a fixed number of positions (typically three), transforming into that appeared as to outsiders. Caesar applied this to military dispatches sent to generals, safeguarding strategic orders from enemy capture or messenger betrayal, as decryption required knowledge of the shift value shared confidentially between sender and receiver. Despite its vulnerability to over long messages, the exemplified early reliance on symmetric key principles for end-to-end confidentiality in untrusted transit networks.

Modern Protocols and Milestones

The Off-the-Record (OTR) Messaging protocol, released in 2004 by cryptographers including and Nikita Borisov, represented a foundational modern advancement in E2EE for , combining symmetric with Diffie-Hellman to provide , deniability, and protection against replay attacks. OTR addressed limitations in earlier systems like PGP by emphasizing ephemeral keys and , enabling private chats over existing IM networks without persistent metadata exposure. In 2013, (now Signal Messenger) published the , which introduced the —a hybrid of symmetric key ratcheting and Diffie-Hellman exchanges—to achieve both (protecting past messages if keys are compromised) and post-compromise security (recovering security after key exposure through key renewal). The protocol also incorporated X3DH for asynchronous key agreement, allowing secure setup without simultaneous online presence, and was initially deployed in the open-source app. Signal's framework saw rapid milestones in adoption: integrated it in April 2016 for end-to-end encrypted messaging among its then-1 billion users, scaling E2EE to mass consumer applications while retaining . By 2016, extensions like the session management further enhanced multi-device support. In 2015, the OMEMO protocol extended Signal's Double Ratchet to XMPP federated networks via XEP-0384, enabling multi-end, multi-device E2EE with device-specific keys published to a directory for asynchronous access. Group messaging protocols emerged as a subsequent milestone, with the (MLS) framework's first Internet-Draft published in March 2019 by the IETF, standardizing asynchronous E2EE for dynamic groups using ratcheted key packages to minimize server-held secrets and support efficient joins/leaves. MLS addressed scalability issues in pairwise E2EE extensions, influencing implementations in apps like Signal's groups. Recent evolutions include Signal's 2023 PQXDH extension, integrating post-quantum key encapsulation () with classical curves to mitigate harvest-now-decrypt-later threats from quantum advances, without degrading performance for current hardware. These protocols collectively shifted E2EE from niche tools to ubiquitous standards, prioritizing cryptographic agility amid evolving threats.

Motivations and Benefits

Privacy and Civil Liberties Advantages

End-to-end encryption safeguards user privacy by mathematically ensuring that only the sender and intended recipient possess the cryptographic keys necessary to decrypt communications, thereby excluding service providers, intermediaries, and unauthorized third parties from accessing content. This design inherently resists during transmission, protecting against by governments, corporations, or hackers who might otherwise exploit centralized data storage or network vulnerabilities. In practice, a 2021 U.S. federal to Signal Messenger LLC yielded only the account's creation date and last connection timestamp, with no message contents, contacts, or other substantive data available due to the absence of stored decryption keys. For , end-to-end encryption enables individuals to exercise rights to free expression, association, and without pervasive monitoring, particularly benefiting journalists, activists, and whistleblowers in environments prone to repression. Tools employing this technology have facilitated secure coordination during protests and reporting from authoritarian contexts, where unencrypted channels would expose participants to retaliation or censorship. By denying governments and companies routine access to private communications, it counters efforts to impose generalized , preserving the autonomy essential for dissent and accountability mechanisms. Empirical evidence from responses underscores that such systems limit even lawful inquiries to metadata, upholding as a bulwark against overreach while not impeding targeted investigations reliant on other evidence.

Protection Against Surveillance and Attacks

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) safeguards message content against interception by intermediaries, including internet service providers, communication service operators, and government entities seeking access through legal compulsion applied to those intermediaries. In E2EE systems, cryptographic keys are generated and retained exclusively at the communicating endpoints, rendering stored ciphertext on servers undecryptable without endpoint compromise. This design inherently limits the data available to third parties, even under subpoena, to non-content metadata such as account registration timestamps. A concrete illustration occurred in April 2021, when a U.S. federal subpoenaed Signal Messenger LLC for records associated with a specific user account in a . Signal's compliance response revealed that its E2EE implementation permitted disclosure solely of the account's creation date—October 1, 2018—while all requested details like contacts, messages, and call logs were unavailable due to the absence of stored or decryption keys on Signal's servers. Similar constraints apply to other E2EE platforms; for instance, applications employing the , such as , resist content extraction by providers, compelling authorities to target endpoints directly for access. Beyond surveillance, E2EE defends against network-based attacks, including passive eavesdropping and active man-in-the-middle (MITM) interceptions, by ensuring data confidentiality and integrity during transit. Protocols incorporating authenticated , such as double ratchet mechanisms, verify endpoint identities and , preventing attackers from decrypting captured traffic or injecting forged messages without detection. Empirical analyses of secure messaging systems confirm that robust E2EE implementations withstand interception attempts by nation-state actors lacking endpoint control, as demonstrated in protocol verifications for applications like Signal and Wire. However, protection relies on proper authentication ceremonies to mitigate risks from compromised certificates or social engineering that could enable MITM during initial key establishment.

Implementations

Messaging Applications

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) in messaging applications ensures that only the communicating parties can access message contents, preventing intermediaries including service providers from decrypting data. This implementation typically relies on protocols like the , which employs double ratchet algorithms for and deniability. The Signal app pioneered default E2EE for text, voice, video, and group communications since its protocol's development, retaining minimal user data such as account creation date and last connection timestamp, as demonstrated in a 2021 U.S. federal where no message contents or contacts could be disclosed due to the absence of stored decryption keys. WhatsApp adopted the Signal Protocol in 2016, enabling E2EE by default for one-to-one messages, group chats, and calls across its over one billion users at the time, with cryptographic verification available to confirm encryption status. Backups to cloud services remain unencrypted by default, though optional end-to-end encrypted backups were introduced in 2021 to extend protection. Apple's iMessage implemented E2EE upon its 2011 launch for communications between Apple devices, using a custom protocol upgraded to PQ3 in 2024 for post-quantum resistance, though fallback to SMS occurs for non-Apple recipients and iCloud backups require Advanced Data Protection for full E2EE. Meta's Messenger began rolling out default E2EE for one-to-one messages and calls in December 2023, building on the but facing delays in group chat support. In contrast, Telegram provides E2EE only in optional "Secret Chats," which are device-specific and exclude cloud syncing or groups, leaving standard chats reliant on server-client encryption accessible to the provider. Telegram's MTProto protocol, used in these Secret Chats, has faced criticism from security experts for incorporating non-standard, unaudited elements such as Infinite Garble Extension mode and server-chosen parameters, which raise potential security concerns. Implementing a secure E2EE messenger requires deep expertise in cryptography, security engineering, networking, and secure implementation practices, with challenges including secure key management, forward secrecy, multi-device support, performance optimization, metadata protection, and avoiding subtle vulnerabilities such as man-in-the-middle attacks. Experts strongly advise against developing custom ("roll your own") cryptography and recommend instead using audited open-source protocols like the Signal Protocol's Double Ratchet algorithm to minimize risks. These variations highlight that while E2EE adoption has grown, its effectiveness depends on default enablement, protocol robustness, and resistance to endpoint compromises or metadata collection.

Voice, Video, and Real-Time Communications

End-to-end encryption for voice, video, and real-time communications secures media streams such that only the endpoints possess the decryption keys, preventing intermediaries—including service providers—from accessing content. This is achieved through initial key exchange via protocols like the Signal Protocol's , which generates ephemeral session keys, combined with media encryption standards such as (SRTP) for RTP packets carrying audio and video data. The Signal messaging application extends its core protocol to voice and one-to-one video calls, introduced in public beta on February 14, 2017, for Android and clients. These calls employ end-to-end encryption, with keys derived device-side to protect against server compromise, and support multi-device forking via () to route encrypted streams seamlessly across devices as of October 20, 2020. For group video calls, Signal uses a Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU) architecture deployed in December 2021, where servers relay but do not decrypt packets, enabling scalable encryption for up to 40 participants while maintaining low latency through and congestion control. WhatsApp applies the Signal Protocol to end-to-end encrypt both voice and video calls, ensuring that content remains inaccessible to Meta servers or third parties during transit. This implementation, active since the protocol's integration in 2016, covers real-time sessions alongside messaging, with keys generated and managed exclusively by endpoints. WebRTC frameworks, used in browser-based video communications, provide built-in DTLS-SRTP for hop-by-hop media encryption but require application-layer enhancements for true end-to-end protection. As of February 21, 2024, major browsers support end-to-end encryption via the Insertable Streams API, allowing developers to insert custom encryption (e.g., AES-based) on raw media frames before encoding and transmission, excluding servers from key access even in SFU or MCU topologies. Commercial platforms have adopted these approaches variably. Zoom rolled out optional end-to-end encryption for audio, video, and screen sharing in meetings starting October 14, , using 256-bit AES-GCM after a July beta, though it restricts features like cloud recording and requires host enablement. Discord implemented end-to-end encryption for audio and video calls via its DAVE protocol on September 4, 2024, applying it by default to enhance privacy without server decryption. supports end-to-end encryption for calls when mutually enabled, securing streams from origin to destination as of its documented feature rollout. These systems prioritize compatibility with real-time constraints, such as sub-150ms latency, by leveraging UDP-based transport and in .

Data Storage and Emerging Uses

In data storage applications, end-to-end encryption involves client-side encryption where user devices encrypt data prior to upload to cloud providers, ensuring that service operators hold only inaccessible without user-managed keys. This approach contrasts with server-side encryption, as it prevents providers from decrypting or scanning content for features like search or compliance scanning. Services such as Cryptomator provide open-source tools for transparent client-side encryption atop existing cloud storage like or , encrypting files into virtual drives without altering provider infrastructure. Prominent implementations include Apple's Advanced Data Protection for , introduced on December 7, 2022, which extends end-to-end encryption to categories like device backups, photos, and notes, covering over 20 data types while requiring user opt-in for key custody by Apple. Similarly, pCloud offers zero-knowledge client-side encryption via its Crypto feature, where files are locked on the before transmission, with keys never shared with the provider. Filen.io operates as a dedicated end-to-end encrypted platform, applying client-side encryption to all features including file versioning and sharing, emphasizing since its launch. The U.S. recommends selecting providers supporting such for data in transit and at rest to minimize risks from unauthorized access. Emerging uses extend beyond traditional storage to specialized domains requiring persistent secure data handling. In healthcare, end-to-end encryption secures electronic health records and telemedicine platforms, protecting sensitive patient data from breaches during storage and transmission, as seen in systems prioritizing compliance with regulations like HIPAA. For collaborative development, researchers at the developed an end-to-end encryption protocol for services in October 2025, enabling secure storage and versioning of code repositories where data remains protected from repository hosts throughout the workflow. Additionally, integration into privacy-focused social applications has grown, with platforms leveraging end-to-end encryption for user-controlled data storage in feeds and media, countering centralized surveillance in ecosystems as of 2025. These applications highlight expanding adoption in decentralized and real-time data environments, though challenges persist in and for non-technical users.

Technical Challenges

Protocol Vulnerabilities

End-to-end encryption protocols remain susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks when public keys lack robust out-of-band authentication, allowing adversaries to impersonate parties and decrypt traffic. Such vulnerabilities arise from reliance on centralized without sufficient verification mechanisms, potentially exposing session keys despite encryption in transit. In the Matrix protocol's Olm and Megolm libraries, multiple cryptographic design flaws enable practical attacks, including the reuse of one-time keys for multiple messages, which violates and permits decryption of up to 65,536 messages per key compromise. Attackers can also exploit absent checks on inbound messages to inject replays or malleable ciphertexts, forging content without detection, as demonstrated in analyses affecting federated E2EE implementations. The , foundational to protocols like Signal's, exhibits limitations in security models where adversaries controlling message delivery can leak session keys under skipped-message scenarios, undermining post-compromise security for extended periods. Formal analyses reveal that prior proofs overestimated resilience, with adversaries potentially recovering up to 2^{n/2} bits of information from ratchet states in multi-user settings, necessitating tighter reductions for practical deployment. Emerging injection attacks target protocol state machines by sending crafted payloads to victims, eliciting responses that leak recovery vectors or key material through observable protocol behavior, as shown in evaluations of messaging apps in November 2024. These exploits, feasible without endpoint access, compromise in protocols lacking input validation, affecting systems like those using prekey mechanisms where state synchronization flaws degrade perfect . Implementing end-to-end encryption in messaging applications demands profound expertise in cryptography, security engineering, networking, and secure implementation practices. Custom protocols, exemplified by Telegram's MTProto—which restricts full E2EE to optional "Secret Chats" rather than default chats or groups—have faced expert scrutiny for non-standard, unaudited features such as server-influenced parameters and the Infinite Garble Extension mode, potentially harboring subtle vulnerabilities. Core difficulties encompass secure key management, ensuring forward secrecy, enabling multi-device support, mitigating performance overhead, shielding metadata, and averting threats like man-in-the-middle attacks. Cryptographic best practices strongly discourage proprietary implementations, or "rolling your own crypto," in favor of vetted, open-source frameworks like Signal's Double Ratchet algorithm to minimize risks of overlooked flaws.

Quantum-Resistant Requirements

End-to-end encryption protocols predominantly depend on asymmetric , such as elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key exchange, for initial key establishment and authentication, which are susceptible to efficient and attacks by sufficiently powerful quantum computers using . This vulnerability necessitates quantum-resistant alternatives to prevent "" threats, where adversaries collect encrypted session data today for future decryption once quantum capabilities mature. Requirements for quantum resistance in E2EE thus mandate replacing or augmenting these primitives with (PQC) algorithms that rely on mathematical problems, like lattice-based hardness assumptions, presumed secure against both classical and quantum adversaries. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has standardized PQC mechanisms critical for E2EE, including ML-KEM (FIPS 203) for key encapsulation in August 2024, enabling secure key exchange resistant to quantum attacks. Complementary standards include ML-DSA (FIPS 204) and SLH-DSA (FIPS 205) for digital signatures to authenticate keys and messages, with HQC selected in March 2025 as a backup key encapsulation mechanism against potential lattice breaks. For E2EE specifically, protocols must incorporate these into key agreement phases while preserving properties like forward secrecy and deniability; pure PQC adoption introduces challenges such as larger public keys (e.g., Kyber-768 keys at ~1 KB versus X25519's 32 bytes) and higher computational overhead, potentially increasing latency in real-time communications. Hybrid schemes address transitional risks by combining classical algorithms with PQC, ensuring security if either component holds: for instance, Signal's PQXDH protocol, introduced in September 2023, integrates X25519 for immediate classical protection with CRYSTALS-Kyber for quantum resistance during initial key derivation. Subsequent advancements, such as Signal's post-quantum ratchets announced in October 2025, extend this to ongoing session keys via hybrid mechanisms, mitigating risks from key reuse or compromise in forward-secure chains. Requirements emphasize cryptographic agility to upgrade without disrupting existing deployments, alongside rigorous side-channel resistance and performance optimization, as full quantum threats may emerge within 10-20 years per expert estimates. These standards and implementations prioritize empirical security margins over unproven quantum assumptions, with ongoing evaluations for long-term viability.

Practical Limitations

Endpoint Compromise Risks

End-to-end encryption secures data only between endpoints, leaving exposure vulnerable once decrypted on compromised devices such as smartphones or computers. Attackers gaining endpoint access—through , , or physical theft—can intercept messages before encryption, capture decrypted content, or extract private keys, rendering E2EE ineffective against such threats. This risk persists because E2EE protocols assume endpoint integrity, focusing protection on channels and servers rather than client-side defenses. Malware variants exemplify these vulnerabilities; for instance, NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, deployed since at least 2016, infects and Android devices via zero-day exploits, enabling real-time extraction of data from E2EE apps like and Signal by hooking into app processes or OS layers post-decryption. In targeted attacks, has compromised over 50,000 phone numbers globally by 2021, including journalists and activists, bypassing transit encryption through endpoint persistence. Similarly, keyloggers or screen-capture tools can harvest inputs and outputs in , as demonstrated in forensic analyses of infected devices where E2EE metadata alone fails to alert users. Recent incidents highlight evolving tactics; in February 2025, identified Russian advanced persistent threats exploiting Signal's linked devices feature to access decrypted conversations across secondary endpoints, allowing undetected surveillance despite primary E2EE safeguards. Phishing-induced compromises, such as those delivering trojans via malicious links, further enable persistent access, with studies showing over 80% of mobile malware incidents in 2023 targeting messaging apps' local storage. Physical access risks compound this, as unlocked devices permit direct key exfiltration; for example, unlocked iPhones with biometric bypasses have yielded E2EE app data in seizures. Mitigating endpoint risks requires layered defenses beyond E2EE, including device hardening, secure boot verification, and behavioral monitoring, yet no protocol inherently enforces these, leaving users reliant on OS-level protections often undermined by supply-chain vulnerabilities. Empirical data from breach reports indicate endpoint compromises account for 70-90% of data exposures in E2EE ecosystems, underscoring the causal primacy of device security over cryptographic channels.

Metadata and Side-Channel Exposures

End-to-end encryption secures the content of communications against by intermediaries, but metadata—such as sender and recipient identifiers, timestamps, message frequencies, and device information—often remains unencrypted and accessible to service providers. This exposure enables reconstruction of social graphs, behavioral patterns, and relational networks without accessing message payloads. In practice, metadata retention varies by implementation. For Signal, a subpoena issued in October 2021 by the Central District of for user data associated with a specific phone number yielded only the account creation date and last connection timestamp, as the service discards other records post-delivery. In contrast, WhatsApp, despite employing end-to-end encryption via the , collects and retains metadata including contact lists, IP addresses, and interaction logs, which are shared with parent company Meta for analytics and advertising purposes. Such data has been compelled in legal requests, highlighting how metadata serves as a vector for even in encrypted ecosystems. Side-channel exposures extend beyond stored metadata to infer information through indirect observations of encrypted traffic or system behaviors. attacks exploit patterns in packet timing, sizes, and volumes to deduce communication endpoints and content lengths, as encrypted payloads preserve structural signatures. For instance, multipath protocols have been proposed as defenses, but standard implementations remain vulnerable to by adversaries monitoring network flows. Application-level side-channels further compromise privacy in end-to-end encrypted messengers. Operating system interactions, such as notifications or access, can leak message previews or keystroke patterns during composition, bypassing encryption boundaries. Research presented at 33 demonstrated exploits targeting pre-encryption stages, where device sensors or UI elements reveal equivalents before sealing. Injection attacks, assuming endpoint compromise, can also manipulate encrypted sessions to extract attachments or infer semantics via protocol injections. These vulnerabilities underscore that end-to-end encryption alone does not mitigate all informational leaks, necessitating layered defenses like and minimal retention policies.

Policy and Societal Impacts

Law Enforcement and National Security Conflicts

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) creates significant challenges for and agencies by rendering communication content inaccessible to service providers, even under court orders. In the United States, the (FBI) has described this as the "going dark" problem, where encrypted devices and services impede access to evidence needed for investigations into crimes such as child exploitation, , and drug trafficking. FBI Director highlighted these concerns in a 2014 speech, noting that widespread adoption of E2EE in smartphones and messaging apps limits lawful intercepts previously possible through carrier cooperation. A prominent example is the 2016 Apple-FBI dispute following the San Bernardino terrorist attack on December 2, 2015, where attackers Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people. The FBI sought to unlock Farook's , protected by Apple's encryption, via a court order under the requiring Apple to develop software to disable the device's auto-erase function and brute-force the passcode. Apple refused, arguing it would undermine device security for all users and set a precedent for compelled backdoors. The case was dropped on March 28, 2016, after the FBI accessed the device through an undisclosed third-party method, but it intensified debates over mandating decryption assistance. Law enforcement agencies report quantifiable impediments, though statistics have faced scrutiny. In 2017 congressional testimony, the Department of Justice stated that encryption prevented access to data on over 6,000 mobile devices in active cases, including homicides and terrorism probes. However, a 2018 review revealed the FBI had overcounted by treating multiple requests for the same device as separate instances, reducing the figure to about 1,000 unique encrypted devices where access failed. Critics, including privacy advocates, argue that alternative investigative methods—such as metadata analysis, endpoint seizures, or undercover operations—often suffice, and federal wiretap reports from 2001–2019 show encryption blocked content in only 0.046% of cases. In national security contexts, terrorist groups have exploited E2EE for operational security. ISIS operatives used apps like Telegram and WhatsApp with E2EE features to coordinate attacks and recruit, as documented in analyses of seized devices and online behaviors from 2015–2018. A 2021 Tech Against Terrorism report, based on multi-stakeholder discussions, confirmed E2EE's role in evading detection, though groups also rely on operational security practices beyond encryption. In response, the Five Eyes nations (, , , , ) issued a 2020 joint statement asserting that "warrant-proof" E2EE enables criminals and terrorists to operate without detection, while affirming encryption's value for legitimate privacy. Messaging services like Signal exemplify minimal compliance with subpoenas due to E2EE design. Signal retains no message content, contacts, or group data, providing only the account creation date and last login (if available) in response to legal requests—details disclosed transparently on their site for warrants received since 2016. A 2021 grand jury in California's Central District sought extensive user records, but Signal returned only the registration date, underscoring how E2EE eliminates intermediary-held evidence. Internationally, the 's empowers the government to issue Technical Capability Notices requiring communications providers to remove or provide decryption keys for serious crimes and threats. Recent amendments in the 2024 Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act expanded these powers, prompting criticism for risking global cybersecurity by pressuring firms like Apple to weaken E2EE backups. In February 2025, the reportedly ordered Apple to enable access to encrypted data via such notices, highlighting ongoing tensions between state needs and encryption integrity. These conflicts underscore a core tension: E2EE's mathematical strength protects against and unauthorized access but can shield malicious actors from targeted probes. Proponents of lawful access argue for exceptional mechanisms without universal backdoors, citing risks like child exploitation cases stalled by locked devices; opponents counter that any mandated weakness invites exploitation by adversaries, as no system can guarantee keys remain secure from theft or coercion. shows E2EE impedes some investigations but not overwhelmingly, with agencies adapting via tools like the FBI's 2021 ANOM operation, which infiltrated an encrypted phone network to arrest over 800 suspects worldwide.

Regulatory Pressures and Global Responses

Governments worldwide have intensified efforts to mandate access to end-to-end encrypted communications, primarily to combat child sexual abuse material (CSAM), , and , arguing that strong encryption creates "warrant-proof" spaces inaccessible to lawful authorities. These pressures often involve proposals for client-side scanning, message traceability, or compelled weakening of encryption protocols, which critics contend introduce systemic vulnerabilities exploitable by malicious actors beyond targeted goals. In the , the Chat Control proposal, initially advanced in 2022 and evolving through 2025, seeks to require scanning of private digital communications, including those protected by end-to-end encryption, for CSAM detection using AI or human review. This would necessitate either pre-encryption scanning on user devices or post-encryption decryption by providers, effectively undermining encryption integrity across services like and Signal. The outlined a roadmap on June 24, 2025, to facilitate data access, prompting opposition from privacy advocates who highlight risks of and exploitation by cybercriminals or state adversaries. A planned vote on October 14, 2025, underscores ongoing tensions, with warnings that mandatory weakening of encryption could create exploitable security gaps. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act, enacted in October 2023, empowers regulator to compel platforms to deploy "accredited technology" for detecting and removing illegal content, including on encrypted services, with potential fines up to 10% of global annual revenue for noncompliance. Although explicit plans to break end-to-end were paused in April 2025, the law retains provisions that could mandate scanning, raising concerns over erosion and the creation of global precedents for . Industry responses include commitments to prioritize while exploring compliance without weakening it, though feasibility remains debated. In the United States, legislative initiatives such as the and STOP CSAM Act, reintroduced in various forms through 2025, aim to strip safe harbors for platforms using end-to-end encryption unless they implement scanning for CSAM, potentially criminalizing unmonitored encrypted storage or promotion of such content. These bills, opposed by groups like the , contrast with supportive measures like the SAFE Act, which affirms the legality of strong encryption sales. Federal law enforcement has documented challenges in accessing encrypted data in over 7,000 cases annually, fueling calls for "lawful access" without outright bans. Paradoxically, agencies like the FBI recommended end-to-end encrypted apps for secure communications in incident response as of January 2025. India's 2021 Information Technology Rules mandate traceability of originator messages on platforms like WhatsApp, directly conflicting with end-to-end encryption. In April 2024, WhatsApp informed the Delhi High Court that compliance would render the service inoperable in India, as breaking encryption violates its core design, potentially leading to market exit. The court questioned the absolutism of privacy claims but has not resolved the case, highlighting tensions between national security demands and user protections. China's Encryption Law, effective January 1, 2020, classifies into core (state-controlled), common (regulated commercial), and self-use categories, requiring approval for commercial products and prohibiting unapproved end-to-end encryption that denies access. This framework mandates decryption capabilities for authorities, effectively banning foreign services unable to provide backdoors, as seen in restrictions on apps without . Compliance demands have deterred international firms, prioritizing state oversight over . Tech firms and have responded with legal challenges, policy advocacy, and manifestos defending 's role in security; for instance, and others in 2025 prioritized U.S. encryption protections against scanning mandates. These efforts underscore that mandated access dilutes 's mathematical guarantees, increasing risks from non-state threats without proven reductions in targeted crimes.

Balanced Perspectives on Trade-Offs

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) inherently creates a tension between individual protections and the operational needs of and agencies seeking access to communications for legitimate investigations. Proponents of robust E2EE argue that it safeguards users from unauthorized by governments, corporations, and criminals, thereby preserving and preventing widespread vulnerabilities that backdoors could introduce. For instance, strong thwarts not only malicious actors but also potential abuses of power, as evidenced by historical revelations of programs. Critics of absolute E2EE, including agencies like the FBI, contend that it enables "warrant-proof" spaces where serious crimes such as child sexual exploitation and terrorism proliferate unchecked, complicating evidence gathering in targeted cases. Empirical assessments of E2EE's impact on outcomes reveal mixed results, underscoring the complexity of the . A 2023 analysis of Dutch cases found no significant difference in conviction rates between offenders using E2EE and those relying on unencrypted communications, suggesting that investigators can often obtain evidence through alternative means like endpoint seizures or metadata analysis. Conversely, reports highlight operational challenges, such as the UK's noting in 2024 that E2EE has severely hampered efforts to identify and prosecute offenders in cases, with platforms like cited as facilitators of encrypted criminal networks. These conflicting data points reflect a broader debate: while E2EE demonstrably protects billions of daily messages from , its blanket application may inadvertently shield a small fraction of malicious actors without proportionate benefits for the majority of lawful users. Proposed solutions to reconcile these perspectives, such as client-side scanning or exceptional access mechanisms, face technical and philosophical hurdles. Client-side scanning, advocated by some for detecting illegal content like material before , risks false positives and , potentially undermining the very privacy E2EE provides. International statements from 2020, signed by multiple governments including the and , endorse strong while calling for technical means to enable lawful access, yet no consensus has emerged on implementations that do not weaken overall system security. The 2016 San Bernardino case, where the FBI sought Apple's assistance to unlock an but ultimately succeeded via a third-party exploit, illustrated that compelled assistance from providers may not be necessary but highlighted persistent demands for such capabilities amid fears of "going dark." Ultimately, first-principles evaluation favors preserving E2EE's integrity, as any mandated vulnerability invites exploitation by adversaries more readily than it aids calibrated , though this stance requires ongoing investment in non-encrypted investigative tools like physical warrants and international cooperation.

Future Outlook

Advancements in Protocols

The , widely adopted for end-to-end encryption in applications like and Signal Messenger, advanced in 2023 with the introduction of PQXDH (Post-Quantum Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman), a hybrid key agreement protocol combining classical X3DH with post-quantum elements based on to resist attacks from future quantum computers capable of breaking . PQXDH enables secure initial key establishment in asynchronous messaging scenarios while maintaining deniability and authentication properties, addressing the "" threat where adversaries store encrypted data for future quantum decryption. Formal verification efforts confirmed its security against key compromise impersonation and post-quantum adversaries, though it relies on hybrid design due to the immaturity of pure post-quantum schemes at the time. Building on PQXDH, Signal implemented the Sparse Post-Quantum Ratchet (SPQR) in 2025, extending the Double Ratchet mechanism into a Triple Ratchet that incorporates post-quantum symmetric ratcheting for enhanced and post-compromise security against quantum threats. SPQR uses sparse, efficient post-quantum operations to minimize computational overhead in ongoing message exchanges, preserving the protocol's efficiency for resource-constrained devices while mitigating risks from on symmetric ciphers. This update deploys hybrid classical-post-quantum keys incrementally, allowing gradual migration without disrupting existing sessions. Broader standardization efforts have incorporated post-quantum primitives into end-to-end protocols following NIST's August release of finalized standards: ML-KEM for key encapsulation (replacing in some contexts), ML-DSA for digital signatures, and SLH-DSA for stateless hash-based signatures. Protocols like (MLS), ratified by the IETF in 2023 for group communications, support hybrid post-quantum extensions via tree-based key derivation, enabling scalable E2EE in multi-party scenarios resistant to quantum eavesdropping. Implementations in tools like Zoom have integrated Kyber-based post-quantum E2EE for video calls since , demonstrating practical deployment with minimal latency increases. These advancements prioritize hybrid approaches to balance security and performance, as pure post-quantum protocols often incur higher computational costs—e.g., key generation is 10-20 times slower than ECDH on modern hardware—necessitating optimizations like precomputation and . Ongoing research focuses on reducing key sizes and signature overheads, with proposals for lattice-based deniable to further enhance metadata protection in E2EE systems.

Adoption Barriers and Innovations

Despite its security benefits, end-to-end encryption (E2EE) faces significant adoption barriers, primarily stemming from usability challenges that deter widespread user engagement. Studies indicate that poor and complex setup processes lead to low activation rates; for instance, a of tools found that users often fail to enable E2EE features due to unintuitive warnings and lack of seamless integration, resulting in only a fraction of potential sessions being encrypted. Similarly, remains a persistent technical hurdle, as generating, distributing, and verifying encryption keys without centralized server involvement introduces errors prone to exploitation, particularly in non-expert environments. These issues compound with performance overheads, where encryption-decryption cycles can introduce latency in resource-constrained devices, discouraging in high-volume messaging apps. Regulatory and compliance pressures further impede enterprise adoption, as E2EE obscures data for auditing and legal intercepts, conflicting with obligations under frameworks like GDPR or sector-specific mandates. Businesses report difficulties in balancing E2EE with needs for searchable archives or employee oversight, often leading to hybrid or foregone implementations; a 2025 survey highlighted that 40% of organizations cited compliance as a primary deterrent. Governments have proposed mandates for client-side scanning or traceability, such as the EU's 2025 Chat Control initiative, which requires detecting material in encrypted channels, potentially undermining E2EE integrity and eroding user trust. Economic factors, including integration costs for legacy systems and uncertain monetization for providers, exacerbate these barriers, with infrastructure providers reluctant to bear upfront expenses without clear consumer demand. Innovations are addressing these obstacles through protocol advancements and usability enhancements. The (MLS) protocol, standardized by the IETF in 2022 and adopted for RCS messaging in March 2025 by the , enables scalable group key agreements that reduce computational load and support cross-platform , facilitating broader deployment in successors without sacrificing . For developer workflows, a October 2025 of Sydney-led project introduced E2EE for services, using threshold signatures to protect repositories from server-side breaches while maintaining collaboration efficiency. Usability improvements include default E2EE activation in cloud backups— implemented this for Android in 2023, prompting Apple to expand similar features by 2025—and automated key recovery mechanisms that minimize user friction without compromising . Emerging frameworks, such as those outlined in 2025 playbooks for E2EE messaging, propose standardized APIs to bridge apps like Signal and , mitigating fragmentation and boosting network effects for adoption. These developments prioritize causal models, ensuring innovations preserve E2EE's core principle of exclusive endpoint access while countering practical deployment frictions.

References

  1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-e2ee-definition/
  2. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/end_to_end_encryption
  3. https://engineering.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/MessengerEnd-to-EndEncryptionOverview_12-6-2023.pdf
  4. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/03/27/1113919/what-is-signal-the-messaging-app-explained/
  5. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access
  6. https://www.justice.gov/olp/lawful-access
  7. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/end-to-end-encryption-is-a-critical-national-security-tool
  8. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-e2ee-definition-04.html
  9. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/end-to-end-encryption
  10. https://www.preveil.com/blog/end-to-end-encryption/
  11. https://www.splashtop.com/blog/what-is-end-to-end-encryption
  12. https://ssd.eff.org/module/deep-dive-end-end-encryption-how-do-public-key-encryption-systems-work
  13. https://visionspace.com/how-end-to-end-encryption-keeps-your-messages-truly-private/
  14. https://www.okta.com/identity-101/end-to-end-encryption/
  15. https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/2085.pdf
  16. https://www.encryptionconsulting.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-perfect-forward-secrecy/
  17. https://www.stackfield.com/blog/end-to-end-encryption-284
  18. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27
  19. https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/
  20. https://crypto.iacr.org/2022/papers/530630_1_En_27_Chapter_OnlinePDF.pdf
  21. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp4700.pdf
  22. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/cryptography-history
  23. https://www.entrust.com/resources/learn/history-of-cryptography
  24. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/brief-history-cryptography
  25. https://www.digicert.com/blog/the-history-of-cryptography
  26. https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
  27. https://robertheaton.com/otr3
  28. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0384.html
  29. https://signal.org/blog/pqxdh/
  30. https://signal.org/blog/spqr/
  31. https://www.eff.org/document/benefits-encryption
  32. https://www.justsecurity.org/79549/we-now-know-what-information-the-fbi-can-obtain-from-encrypted-messaging-apps/
  33. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/the-vital-role-of-end-to-end-encryption
  34. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/will-zoom-bring-encryption-people-who-need-it-most
  35. https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/SECURING%2520PRIVACY%2520-%2520PI%2520on%2520End-to-End%2520Encryption.pdf
  36. https://ssd.eff.org/module/what-should-i-know-about-encryption
  37. https://signal.org/bigbrother/central-california-grand-jury/
  38. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/man-in-the-middle
  39. https://nsaxena.engr.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/238/2023/10/3558482.3581773.pdf
  40. https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/
  41. https://signal.org/bigbrother/
  42. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/whatsapp-rolls-out-end-end-encryption-its-1bn-users
  43. https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543
  44. https://www.welivesecurity.com/2021/09/14/whatsapp-announces-end-to-end-encrypted-backups/
  45. https://security.apple.com/blog/imessage-pq3/
  46. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/imessage-security-overview-secd9764312f/web
  47. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/meta-announces-end-end-encryption-default-messenger
  48. https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram-is-not-really-an-encrypted-messaging-app/
  49. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iETF-cfrg-xyuc-01.html
  50. https://docs.realtime.cloudflare.com/guides/capabilities/misc/end-to-end-encryption
  51. https://signal.org/blog/how-to-build-encrypted-group-calls/
  52. https://signal.org/blog/signal-video-calls-beta/
  53. https://signal.org/blog/ice-forking/
  54. https://faq.whatsapp.com/808280033839222
  55. https://www.quora.com/How-does-end-to-end-encryption-work-in-WhatsApp-and-why-is-it-important-for-privacy
  56. https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/end-to-end-encrypt-webrtc-in-all-browsers/
  57. https://webrtc.github.io/samples/src/content/insertable-streams/endtoend-encryption/
  58. https://www.zoom.com/en/blog/zoom-rolling-out-end-to-end-encryption-offering/
  59. https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/25968222946071-End-to-End-Encryption-for-Audio-and-Video
  60. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/use-end-to-end-encryption-for-microsoft-teams-calls-1274b4d2-b5c5-4b24-a376-606fa6728a90
  61. https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption/client-side-keys
  62. https://utimaco.com/news/blog-posts/client-side-encryption-cloud-environments-major-advantages-explained
  63. https://cryptomator.org/
  64. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-security-with-powerful-new-data-protections/
  65. https://www.pcloud.com/encrypted-cloud-storage.html
  66. https://filen.io/
  67. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/training/get-most-out-cloud-storage-and-services-while-minimizing-risk
  68. https://www.kiteworks.com/secure-file-sharing/real-world-examples-of-end-to-end-encryption/
  69. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/10/08/scientists-develop-end-to-end-encryption-for-git-services.html
  70. https://www.fullestop.com/blog/privacy-first-social-apps-how-end-to-end-encryption-and-user-control-protect-your-data
  71. https://medium.com/mongodb/the-future-of-end-to-end-encryption-530c5daff03b
  72. https://i.blackhat.com/EU-22/Wednesday-Briefings/EU-22-Jones-Practically-exploitable-Cryptographic-Vulnerabilities-in-Matrix-wp.pdf
  73. https://spectrum.ieee.org/telegram-security
  74. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
  75. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/nist-releases-first-3-finalized-post-quantum-encryption-standards
  76. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2025/03/nist-selects-hqc-fifth-algorithm-post-quantum-encryption
  77. https://signal.org/docs/specifications/pqxdh/
  78. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/whitepaper/next-steps-preparing-for-post-quantum-cryptography
  79. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography/post-quantum-cryptography-standardization
  80. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/sec21fall-akgul.pdf
  81. https://www.globalsign.com/en/blog/how-end-to-end-e2ee-works
  82. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.10313
  83. https://www.securityweek.com/how-russian-hackers-are-exploiting-signals-linked-devices-for-real-time-spying/
  84. https://atomicmail.io/blog/is-whatsapp-safe-the-truth-about-your-privacy
  85. https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2025/08/how-to-secure-communications
  86. https://www.kiteworks.com/secure-file-sharing/real-world-examples-of-end-to-end-encryption
  87. https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2025/07/hidden-threat-messaging-metadata
  88. https://londonlovesbusiness.com/why-end-to-end-encryption-isnt-enough-what-you-need-to-know-about-secure-messaging/
  89. https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/whatsapp-encryption-isnt-the-problem-metadata-is
  90. https://medium.com/%40TalBeerySec/metadata-in-end-to-end-encryption-achilles-heel-or-shield-bbea643bfce7
  91. https://www.mdpi.com/2410-387X/8/2/22
  92. https://blog.talosintelligence.com/secureim/
  93. https://social.cyware.com/news/side-channel-attacks-can-expose-even-the-most-secure-messaging-apps-to-hackers-515df2c0
  94. https://media.defcon.org/DEF%2520CON%252033/DEF%2520CON%252033%2520presentations/Gabriel%2520Gegenhuber%2520Maximilian%2520G%25C3%25BCnther%2520-%2520Silent%2520Signals%2520Exploiting%2520Security%2520and%2520Privacy%2520Side-Channels%2520in%2520End-to-End%2520Encrypted%2520Messengers.pdf
  95. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ragarwal/pubs/e2e-injection-attacks.pdf
  96. https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course
  97. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
  98. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/28/apple-fbi-case-dropped-san-bernardino-iphone
  99. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613763355/fbi-over-counted-encrypted-phones-connected-to-crimes-by-a-lot
  100. https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/going-dark-federal-wiretap-data-show-scant-encryption-problems
  101. https://techagainstterrorism.org/news/2023/01/11/terrorist-use-of-end-to-end-encryption-insights-from-a-year-of-multi-stakeholder-discussion
  102. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety
  103. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety-accessible-version
  104. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/uk-encryption-order-threatens-global-privacy-rights/
  105. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/fbi-s-encrypted-phone-platform-infiltrated-hundreds-criminal-syndicates-result-massive
  106. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/12/defending-encryption-us-and-abroad
  107. https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
  108. https://edri.org/our-work/chat-control-what-is-actually-going-on/
  109. https://www.techpolicy.press/policy-directions-on-encrypted-messaging-and-extreme-speech/
  110. https://cyberscoop.com/potential-eu-law-sparks-global-concerns-encryption-privacy/
  111. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003250_EN.html
  112. https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/The-UKs-Online-Safety-Act-explained-what-you-need-to-know
  113. https://itif.org/publications/2025/06/09/uk-online-safety-act/
  114. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/uk-government-retreats-from-plans-to-break-end-to-end-encryption/
  115. https://proton.me/blog/online-safety-act
  116. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/oppose-stop-csam-protecting-kids-shouldnt-mean-breaking-tools-keep-us-safe
  117. https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-ban-end-end-encryption-without-actually-banning-it/
  118. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/105th-congress/house-report/108/2
  119. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11769
  120. https://investigations.cooley.com/2025/01/15/federal-law-enforcement-recommends-encrypted-and-ephemeral-messaging/
  121. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/whatsapp-delhi-high-court-if-were-told-to-break-encryption-whatsapp-goes-platforms-big-warning-5526190
  122. https://m.economictimes.com/news/how-to/encryption-clash-explained-whatsapps-existence-in-india-hangs-in-the-balance/articleshow/109632475.cms
  123. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/delhi-hc-to-whatsapp-on-its-threat-to-exit-india-right-to-privacy-is-not-absolute/articleshow/109603189.cms
  124. https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2019/10/china-enacts-encryption-law
  125. https://harris-sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/chinas-new-cryptography-law-still-no-place-to-hide/
  126. https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-cyber-regulations-headache-foreign-companies
  127. https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2025/10/21/behind-the-manifesto-standing-up-for-encryption-to-keep-the-internet-safe/
  128. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2023/06/speak-out-against-bills-that-threaten-end-to-end-encryption/
  129. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/09/moving-the-encryption-policy-conversation-forward?lang=en
  130. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access/lawful-access-myths-vs-reality
  131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40163-023-00185-4
  132. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/statement-on-end-to-end-encryption
  133. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/occasional-papers/balancing-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety
  134. https://static.rusi.org/325-OP-E2EE.pdf
  135. https://bluegoatcyber.com/blog/the-encryption-debate-insights-on-the-fbi-vs-apple-controversy/
  136. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity24/presentation/bhargavan
  137. https://www.csoonline.com/article/4078062/quantum-resistance-and-the-signal-protocol-from-pqxdh-to-triple-ratchet.html
  138. https://pqshield.com/diving-into-signals-new-pq-protocol/
  139. https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/10/why-signals-post-quantum-makeover-is-an-amazing-engineering-achievement/
  140. https://www.zoom.com/en/blog/guide-to-post-quantum-end-to-end-encryption/
  141. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10469296/
  142. https://arxiv.org/html/2509.10313v1
  143. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2017/papers/84.pdf
  144. https://www.micromindercs.com/blog/end-to-end-encryption-solutions-in-data-protection
  145. https://devomech.com/implementation-of-end-to-end-encryption-in-messaging-applications/
  146. https://virola.io/articles/challenges-of-using-end-to-end-encryption-for-business
  147. https://mobileecosystemforum.com/2025/09/09/the-end-of-end-to-end-encryption-in-messaging-eu-child-sexual-abuse-regulation-takes-form/
  148. https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CS2.0_Outcomes_Track4.pdf
  149. https://thehackernews.com/2025/03/gsma-confirms-end-to-end-encryption-for.html
  150. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/rcs-texting-updates-will-bring-end-to-end-encryption-to-green-bubble-chats/
  151. https://techxplore.com/news/2025-10-scientists-encryption-git.html
  152. https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2025/01/17/lets-talk-about-ai-and-end-to-end-encryption/
  153. https://techpolicy.press/a-playbook-for-endtoend-encrypted-messaging-interoperability
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.