Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 47 references

DKVE: Decentralized Key Validation for End-to-End Encrypted Messaging

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read DKVE detects MitM attacks on key servers with over 97 percent success in strong social networks by cross-validating keys through mutual contacts.

desk verdict DKVE's social-graph cross-check with OPRF/OKVS/SPRT can plausibly cut KT queries but the 97% detection number is hard to judge from the given evaluation sketch. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.26486 v1 pith:KBQI4YWG submitted 2026-06-25 cs.CR

Subin Song , Taekyoung Kwon (Seoul National University , Seoul , South Korea) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords decentralizedkeyvalidationend-to-endencryptionMitMdetectionsocialgraphtransparencyOPRFSPRT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

End-to-end encrypted messaging requires authentic public keys to block man-in-the-middle attacks, but current methods trade off between strong but unscalable out-of-band checks and automated but storage-heavy key transparency systems. DKVE lets clients query mutual contacts in their social graphs to confirm a contact's public key matches what the server provided, using oblivious pseudorandom functions and oblivious key-value stores to keep both the queries and the contact lists private. A sequential probability ratio test then combines the responses to decide whether the server is misbehaving, with tunable error rates. On real social network data, this approach catches over 97 percent of attacks in networks with strong to moderate ties and cuts the need for key transparency checks by a factor of one hundred, which in turn allows those systems to adopt more compact data structures.

What carries the argument

The combination of Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions (OPRF), Oblivious Key-Value Stores (OKVS), and Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) for aggregating privacy-preserving queries over social graphs to detect key mismatches.

What would settle it

A measurement on a real social network dataset showing detection rates below 97% for MitM attacks in strong-to-moderate-tie networks, or no significant reduction in KT queries.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that privacy-preserving cross-validation of public keys within users' social graphs, implemented with OPRF and OKVS and aggregated via SPRT, can detect server misbehavior with exceeding 97% probability in strong-to-moderate-tie networks while reducing KT query frequency by two orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

Users' social graphs contain enough mutual contacts in strong-to-moderate ties to give the SPRT sufficient statistical power for reliable detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KT directories can migrate from Merkle trees to space-efficient structures like RSA accumulators.
  • DKVE provides a practical complementary mechanism that works alongside KT and OOB verification for the remaining cases.
  • The protocol is feasible for background operation on commodity hardware with acceptable latency and bandwidth.
  • Secure messaging becomes more deployable for billion-user systems by reducing reliance on expensive KT operations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Networks with weaker social ties may still need frequent KT or OOB checks, suggesting hybrid verification strategies.
  • Bootstrapping the system for new users without established contacts remains an open challenge not fully addressed.
  • Similar cross-validation ideas could apply to other distributed trust problems beyond key distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DKVE, a decentralized key validation protocol for E2EE messaging that uses privacy-preserving cross-validation queries over users' social graphs (via OPRF and OKVS) combined with SPRT to detect MitM attacks on key servers. Simulations on real social-network datasets are claimed to show >97% detection for strong-to-moderate-tie networks, with the remaining cases handled by KT or OOB; this is said to reduce KT query frequency by two orders of magnitude, enabling KT directories to adopt space-efficient structures such as RSA accumulators. A proof-of-concept implementation is reported to demonstrate feasible latency and bandwidth on commodity hardware.

Significance. If the simulation results and SPRT power analysis hold under the reported social-graph conditions, DKVE would provide a practical complementary mechanism to KT and OOB verification, potentially allowing architectural changes in key transparency systems that trade Merkle-tree speed for accumulator space efficiency. The configurable error bounds and privacy properties are positive aspects; the PoC implementation adds concrete feasibility evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the central claim of >97% MitM detection (and the derived two-order-of-magnitude KT reduction) rests on SPRT achieving sufficient power from the empirical distribution of mutual contacts in the chosen datasets. The manuscript provides neither the per-user-pair contact-degree histogram, the chosen α/β thresholds, nor any power calculation showing that the observed number of independent observations meets the requirements for the stated error bounds.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no error bars, dataset identifiers, exclusion criteria, or description of the statistical methodology (e.g., number of simulation runs, handling of response correlation) accompany the 97% figure or the KT-frequency reduction claim, rendering the headline quantitative results impossible to assess for robustness.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'exceeding 97%' should be replaced by a precise interval or point estimate with the associated α/β values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater transparency and statistical detail in the Evaluation section. We will revise the manuscript to address both comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the central claim of >97% MitM detection (and the derived two-order-of-magnitude KT reduction) rests on SPRT achieving sufficient power from the empirical distribution of mutual contacts in the chosen datasets. The manuscript provides neither the per-user-pair contact-degree histogram, the chosen α/β thresholds, nor any power calculation showing that the observed number of independent observations meets the requirements for the stated error bounds.

    Authors: We agree that these supporting details are required to substantiate the SPRT power claims. The revised manuscript will add the per-user-pair contact-degree histogram from the datasets, the specific α/β thresholds employed, and the corresponding power calculations confirming that the observed number of independent observations suffices for the reported error bounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no error bars, dataset identifiers, exclusion criteria, or description of the statistical methodology (e.g., number of simulation runs, handling of response correlation) accompany the 97% figure or the KT-frequency reduction claim, rendering the headline quantitative results impossible to assess for robustness.

    Authors: We concur that the current presentation lacks necessary methodological transparency. In the revision we will report error bars on all quantitative results, identify the exact social-network datasets, state exclusion criteria, and describe the full statistical methodology including the number of simulation runs performed and the approach taken to handle response correlation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: detection rate and query reduction are simulation outputs on external datasets, not reductions by construction.

full rationale

The paper presents DKVE as a protocol using OPRF/OKVS and SPRT for cross-validation, then reports >97% MitM detection and two-order KT query reduction from simulations on real social-network datasets restricted to strong-to-moderate ties. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are shown that define the claimed rates in terms of themselves or rename fitted inputs as predictions. The SPRT error bounds are standard statistical guarantees applied to empirical contact distributions; the 97% figure is an observed simulation result under stated network conditions rather than a self-referential derivation. The architectural shift claim follows directly from the measured query reduction without circular redefinition. This is a standard empirical evaluation with no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that real social graphs contain sufficient mutual contacts for SPRT to achieve the stated detection rates, plus the cryptographic assumptions underlying OPRF and OKVS privacy properties. No free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Social graphs of users contain sufficient mutual contacts in strong-to-moderate-tie networks to enable reliable SPRT-based detection
    Invoked when the abstract states that detection exceeds 97% on real social network datasets for those network types
  • standard math OPRF and OKVS provide the stated privacy guarantees for queries and contact lists
    Standard cryptographic primitives whose properties are assumed to hold as used in the protocol description

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DKVE: Decentralized Key Validation for End-to-End Encrypted Messaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBQI4YWG

@misc{pith2026260626486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DKVE: Decentralized Key Validation for End-to-End Encrypted Messaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBQI4YWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.26486}
}
read the original abstract

End-to-end encrypted messaging systems depend on authentic public key distribution to prevent man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. Current solutions present a stark trade-off: out-of-band (OOB) verification provides strong security but lacks scalability for large contact lists, while key transparency (KT) systems enable automated verification at high storage costs and operational complexity. We propose DKVE, a protocol that validates public keys through privacy-preserving cross-validation within users' social graphs. When obtaining a contact's public key from a key server, clients query mutual contacts to verify they hold the same key, combining Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions (OPRF) and Oblivious Key-Value Stores (OKVS) to preserve privacy of both queries and contact lists. DKVE employs a Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) to aggregate responses and detect server misbehavior with user-configurable error bounds. We evaluate DKVE through simulations on real social network datasets, demonstrating DKVE can detect MitM attacks with exceeding 97% for strong-to-moderate-tie networks. The remaining 3% of cases require validation through alternative methods such as KT and OOB verification. Our proof-of-concept implementation confirms feasibility for background operation on commodity hardware, in terms of the latency and bandwidth. As DKVE can reduce the frequency of KT queries by two orders of magnitude, it enables fundamental architectural shifts: KT directories can migrate from fast but space-inefficient Merkle trees to space-efficient data structures like RSA accumulators. While DKVE cannot replace existing methods entirely -- suffering from bootstrapping problems and degraded performance on weak-tie networks -- it provides a practical complementary key validation mechanism, making secure messaging more deployable for billion-user systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key validation process in DKVE. The target’s key received by the querier from the server (pk) is compared with the key received from Responder 1 (pk′ ). for rational servers. Consequently, servers are deterred from attempting to cheat in the first place. Exceptions to this deterrent model are discussed in §5.5. 5.2. Handling False Positives and Negatives This section details how false positives and negatives are han… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Delay measurements for CROSSVALQUERY operation in DKVE. 7. Discussion 7.1. Handling Key Updates DKVE is vulnerable to misinterpretation when the target’s public key has been recently updated. For instance, if the querier retrieves the updated key from the key server but the responder still holds the target’s previous key, the querier may incorrectly suspect that the server has returned a tampered key. A straightforw… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AKD storage cost evaluation results. Storage cost (bytes) versus number of inserted entries. TABLE 3: Estimated AKD storage costs for popular messaging services assuming four key versions per user. “MAUs” denotes monthly active users. Service MAUs Storage Cost WhatsApp ∼ 3 billion [39] 80.6 TB Telegram ∼ 1 billion [40] 26.9 TB Signal ∼ 40–70 million [41] 1.1–1.9 TB device changes or application re-installs). Assumin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bandwidth cost of DKVE versus number of targets and responder contact list size. Q → R and R → Q represent querier-to-responder and responder-to-querier communication, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Signal Messenger: Speak Freely,

    Signal, “Signal Messenger: Speak Freely,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://signal.org/

    2025

  2. [2]

    WhatsApp|Secure and Reliable Free Private Messaging and Calling,

    WhatsApp LLC, “WhatsApp|Secure and Reliable Free Private Messaging and Calling,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.whatsapp.com

    2025

  3. [3]

    Telegram – a new era of messaging,

    Telegram, “Telegram – a new era of messaging,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://telegram.org/

    2025

  4. [4]

    CONIKS: Bringing key transparency to end users,

    M. S. Melara, A. Blankstein, J. Bonneau, E. W. Felten, and M. J. Freedman, “CONIKS: Bringing key transparency to end users,” in24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15). Washington, D.C.: USENIX Association, Aug. 2015, pp. 383–398. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/melara

    2015

  5. [5]

    SEEMless: Secure End-to-End Encrypted Messaging with less Trust,

    M. Chase, A. Deshpande, E. Ghosh, and H. Malvai, “SEEMless: Secure End-to-End Encrypted Messaging with less Trust,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’19. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2019, pp. 1639–1656. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/ 3...

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Parakeet: Practical Key Transparency for End-to-End Encrypted Messaging,

    H. Malvai, L. Kokoris-Kogias, A. Sonnino, E. Ghosh, E. Ozt ¨urk, K. Lewi, and S. Lawlor, “Parakeet: Practical Key Transparency for End-to-End Encrypted Messaging,” in Proceedings 2023 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. San Diego, CA, USA: Internet Society, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/ uploads/2023/0...

    2023

  7. [7]

    OPTIKS: An optimized key transparency system,

    J. Len, M. Chase, E. Ghosh, K. Laine, and R. C. Moreno, “OPTIKS: An optimized key transparency system,” in33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). Philadelphia, PA: USENIX Association, Aug. 2024, pp. 4355–

    2024

  8. [8]

    Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity24/presentation/len

    [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity24/presentation/len

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Oblivious Key-Value Stores and Amplification for Private Set Intersection,

    G. Garimella, B. Pinkas, M. Rosulek, N. Trieu, and A. Yanai, “Oblivious Key-Value Stores and Amplification for Private Set Intersection,” inAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2021: 41st Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2021, Virtual Event, August 16–20, 2021, Pr...

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    RSA-Based Dynamic Accumulator without Hashing into Primes,

    V . Y . Kemmoe and A. Lysyanskaya, “RSA-Based Dynamic Accumulator without Hashing into Primes,” inProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2024, pp. 4271–

    2024

  3. [11]

    Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658644

    [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658644. 3690199

    doi

  4. [12]

    Oblivious Accumulators,

    F. Baldimtsi, I. Karantaidou, and S. Raghuraman, “Oblivious Accumulators,” inPublic-Key Cryptography – PKC 2024: 27th IACR International Conference on Practice and Theory of Public-Key Cryptography, Sydney, NSW, Australia, April 15–17, 2024, Proceedings, Part II. Berlin, Heide...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Documentation,

    Signal, “Documentation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://signal. org/docs/

    2025

  6. [14]

    Specifications>>The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol,

    M. Marlinspike and T. Perrin, “Specifications>>The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol,” Nov. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://signal.org/docs/specifications/x3dh/

    2016

  7. [15]

    Specifications>>The Double Ratchet Algorithm,

    Trevor Perrin and Moxie Marlinspike, “Specifications>>The Double Ratchet Algorithm,” Nov. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://signal.org/docs/specifications/doubleratchet/

    2016

  8. [16]

    Messenger,

    Meta, “Messenger,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www. messenger.com/

    2025

  9. [17]

    SoK: An analysis of end-to-end encryption and authentication ceremonies in secure messaging systems,

    M. Alatawi and N. Saxena, “SoK: An analysis of end-to-end encryption and authentication ceremonies in secure messaging systems,” inProceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, ser. WiSec ’23. Guildford, United Kingdom and New ...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Safety number updates,

    Moxie Marlinspike, “Safety number updates,” Nov. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://signal.org/blog/safety-number-updates/

    2016

  11. [19]

    Deploying key transparency at WhatsApp,

    Sean Lawlor and Kevin Lewi, “Deploying key transparency at WhatsApp,” Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://engineering.fb. com/2023/04/13/security/whatsapp-key-transparency/

    2023

  12. [20]

    What is Key Transparency?

    Proton AG, “What is Key Transparency?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://proton.me/support/key-transparency

    2025

  13. [21]

    SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,

    J. Leskovec and A. Krevl, “SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,” Jun. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://snap.stanford.edu/data

    2014

  14. [22]

    Matrix.org,

    The Matrix.org Foundation, “Matrix.org,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://matrix.org/

    2025

  15. [23]

    Matrix-org/vodozemac,

    ——, “Matrix-org/vodozemac,” The Matrix.org Foundation, Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/matrix-org/ vodozemac

    2025

  16. [24]

    Docs/olm.md·master·matrix-org / Olm·GitLab,

    ——, “Docs/olm.md·master·matrix-org / Olm·GitLab,” Nov

  17. [25]

    Available: https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/ -/blob/master/docs/olm.md

    [Online]. Available: https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/ -/blob/master/docs/olm.md

  18. [26]

    Matrix-nio/matrix-nio,

    Damir Jeli ´c, “Matrix-nio/matrix-nio,” matrix-nio, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/matrix-nio/matrix-nio

    2025

  19. [27]

    Visa-Research/volepsi,

    Visa Research, “Visa-Research/volepsi,” Visa-Research, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Visa-Research/volepsi

    2025

  20. [28]

    VOLE-PSI: Fast OPRF and circuit-PSI from vector-OLE,

    P. Rindal and P. Schoppmann, “VOLE-PSI: Fast OPRF and circuit-PSI from vector-OLE,” inAdvances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2021: 40th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Zagreb, Croatia, October 17–21, 2021, Proceedings, Pa...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Blazing fast PSI from improved OKVS and subfield VOLE,

    S. Raghuraman and P. Rindal, “Blazing fast PSI from improved OKVS and subfield VOLE,” inProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. Ccs ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, pp. 2505–2517. [Online]. ...

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Element-hq/synapse,

    Element, “Element-hq/synapse,” Element, Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/element-hq/synapse

    2025

  23. [31]

    Element|Secure collaboration and messaging,

    ——, “Element|Secure collaboration and messaging,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://element.io/

    2025

  24. [32]

    On the pitfalls of end-to-end encrypted communications: A study of remote key-fingerprint verification,

    M. Shirvanian, N. Saxena, and J. J. George, “On the pitfalls of end-to-end encrypted communications: A study of remote key-fingerprint verification,” inProceedings of the 33rd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ser. Acsac ’17. New York, NY , USA: Association for...

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    ELEKTRA: Efficient lightweight multi-dEvice key transparency,

    J. Len, M. Chase, E. Ghosh, D. Jost, B. Kesavan, and A. Marcedone, “ELEKTRA: Efficient lightweight multi-dEvice key transparency,” inProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. Ccs ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computi...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Investigating the OpenPGP Web of Trust,

    A. Ulrich, R. Holz, P. Hauck, and G. Carle, “Investigating the OpenPGP Web of Trust,” inComputer Security – ESORICS 2011, V . Atluri and C. Diaz, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, pp. 489–507

    2011

  27. [35]

    Challenging the Trustworthiness of PGP: Is the Web-of-Trust Tear-Proof?

    A. Barenghi, A. Di Federico, G. Pelosi, and S. Sanfilippo, “Challenging the Trustworthiness of PGP: Is the Web-of-Trust Tear-Proof?” inComputer Security – ESORICS 2015: 20th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Vienna, Austria, September 21-25, 2015, Proceeding...

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Trusted introductions for secure messaging,

    C. Gloor and A. Perrig, “Trusted introductions for secure messaging,” inSecurity Protocols XXVIII: 28th International Workshop, Cambridge, UK, March 27–28, 2023, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2023, pp. 123–135. [Online]. Available: https://doi.o...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    SoK: Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions,

    S. Casacuberta, J. Hesse, and A. Lehmann, “SoK: Oblivious Pseudorandom Functions,” in2022 IEEE 7th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), Jun. 2022, pp. 625–646. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9797365

    2022

  30. [38]

    Oblivious pseudorandom functions (oprfs) using prime- order groups,

    A. Davidson, A. Faz-Hernandez, N. Sullivan, and C. A. Wood, “Oblivious pseudorandom functions (oprfs) using prime- order groups,” RFC 9497, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9497

    2023

  31. [39]

    A fast and simple partially oblivious PRF, with applications,

    N. Tyagi, S. Celi, T. Ristenpart, N. Sullivan, S. Tessaro, and C. A. Wood, “A fast and simple partially oblivious PRF, with applications,” inAdvances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2022 - 41st Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Technique...

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Near-optimal oblivious key-value stores for efficient PSI, PSU and volume-hiding multi-maps,

    A. Bienstock, S. Patel, J. Y . Seo, and K. Yeo, “Near-optimal oblivious key-value stores for efficient PSI, PSU and volume-hiding multi-maps,” inProceedings of the 32nd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, ser. SEC ’23. USA: USENIX Association, Aug. 2023, pp. 301–318

    2023

  33. [41]

    Facebook/akd,

    Meta, “Facebook/akd,” Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/facebook/akd

    2025

  34. [42]

    WhatsApp now has more than 3 billion users a month,

    I. Mehta, “WhatsApp now has more than 3 billion users a month,” May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/ 01/whatsapp-now-has-more-than-3-billion-users/

    2025

  35. [43]

    Telegram founder Pavel Durov says app now has 1B users, calls WhatsApp a ’cheap, watered down imitation’,

    ——, “Telegram founder Pavel Durov says app now has 1B users, calls WhatsApp a ’cheap, watered down imitation’,” Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/19/ telegram-founder-pavel-durov-says-app-now-has-1b-users-calls-whatsapp-a-cheap-watered-down-imitation/

    2025

  36. [44]

    What is messaging app Signal and how secure is it?

    Tom Gerken, “What is messaging app Signal and how secure is it?” Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/ articles/c1kjd091019o

    2025

  37. [45]

    Learning to discover social circles in ego networks,

    J. McAuley and J. Leskovec, “Learning to discover social circles in ego networks,” inProceedings of the 26th International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 1, ser. NIPS’12, vol. 1. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates Inc., Dec. 2012, pp. 539–547

    2012

  38. [46]

    Data analysis in public social net- works,

    L. Takac and M. Zabovsky, “Data analysis in public social net- works,” inInternational Scientific Conference & International Workshop Present Day Trends of Innovations, Lomza, Poland, May 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    cross-validating friend

    VK Social Network, “API,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //dev.vk.com/en/reference Appendix A. AKDStorage Cost In this section, we evaluate the server-side storage cost ofAKD[38], a key transparency implementation based onSEEMless[5] andParakeet[6]. We write a small program...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.