In a significant shift within the realm of messaging applications, Telegram has been excluded from the top five most secure messengers in 2025, as reported by cybersecurity experts from Artezio, a part of the Lanit group. The ranking, which evaluates applications based on various parameters, has named Signal, a messenger blocked in Russia, as the leader. This change highlights growing concerns over Telegram's security protocols and privacy policies.
Signal topped the list due to its open-source code, stringent end-to-end encryption standards, and innovative data protection solutions. Following Signal, the top five included the French messenger Olvid, the Swiss Threema, decentralized Element, and Australian Session. The assessment was based on 60 key parameters, ranging from encryption quality and metadata protection to resilience against social engineering and transparency in privacy policies.
Experts indicated that Telegram's decline in security ranking can be attributed to several factors, including modifications to its privacy policies, the absence of default end-to-end encryption, and its cooperation with law enforcement agencies across various countries. These changes have raised eyebrows among privacy advocates and users alike, questioning how secure their communications truly are.
Fedor Muzalevsky, an expert in information security and computer forensics, shared insights on the current state of Telegram's security. He expressed skepticism about the ranking system, stating, "I don’t quite agree with the ranking because talking about the security of messengers with closed source code is not entirely correct. We cannot verify Telegram’s signals, for example." He emphasized that the ranking may not accurately reflect the actual security of these applications but rather the number of incidents associated with them.
Muzalevsky further explained the distinction between security and privacy, saying, "Security means that intruders cannot inject malicious code into our messages, while privacy primarily concerns law enforcement's ability to access our conversations." He highlighted that while Telegram has made public assurances in the past about not sharing user data, recent adjustments to their policies, particularly regarding terrorism, have altered the landscape of user confidentiality.
As for the current security and privacy of Telegram, Muzalevsky noted that users can enhance their safety by being cautious. "If we do not click on links sent by unknown accounts and set privacy and security settings to maximum, the experience can be safe," he advised.
Despite the concerns surrounding Telegram, many users are left wondering if they should switch to other, more secure messaging platforms. However, Muzalevsky pointed out that there are numerous alternatives available, and he does not recommend any specific one. This caution is particularly relevant considering that Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, blocked Signal in the summer of 2024, citing violations of Russian legislation, although the specifics of these violations were not disclosed. The regulator suggested that Signal could be used for "terrorist and extremist purposes."
The controversy surrounding Signal has been exacerbated by two notable scandals. In one incident, a journalist from The Atlantic was mistakenly added to a closed chat involving high-ranking White House officials discussing military actions against Yemeni Houthis. Another incident involved Pit Hegseth, the head of the Pentagon, who was found to be discussing classified military information with family members through Signal.
As messaging applications continue to evolve alongside growing security threats, the debate over the safety and privacy of user communications remains critical. The exclusion of Telegram from the top ranks underscores the necessity for users to remain vigilant about their digital privacy and the tools they choose to communicate.
In conclusion, as users navigate the complexities of digital communication, the importance of understanding the security features and privacy policies of their chosen platforms cannot be overstated. With experts urging caution and transparency at the forefront of user concerns, the future of messaging applications will likely depend on their ability to balance security with user privacy.
