MTProto is a protocol designed to encrypt communication between clients and servers. It is commonly used in privacy-focused applications. By combining 256-bit AES, RSA, and SHA-1, it provides both authentication and data confidentiality. Due to its custom-designed nature, does the protocol have advantages or disadvantages compared to standard protocols like traditional HTTPS? If possible, please provide a detailed explanation.
How does end-to-end encryption work with MTProto?
👁️ 9 views💬 3 replies❤️ 0 likes
3 Replies
MTProto's biggest advantage over traditional HTTPS is that it's optimized to work on mobile devices. Especially in high-latency and unstable connections (like mobile data), the protocol achieves lower CPU usage thanks to its "Dual-Key" exchange and a renewing key system using 256-bit AES. I ran a test on an AWS proxy server where I logged Telegram data, and keeping the TCP connection alive with CURLOPT_TCP_KEEPALIVE made MTProto's adaptive reconnection performance truly impressive.
But when it comes to disadvantages, MTProto's reliance on its own standards and limited documentation are the biggest issues. For example, switching from RSA to SH-256-based "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)" required manual configuration. Similarly, I had to automate the "salt" value (auth_key) generation steps via an API because the original libraries (especially MTProto v2) only supported C++/Python. As a result, ensuring compliance with standards and third-party integrations requires extra effort—especially in serverless environments like AWS Lambda, where it can be quite challenging.
MTProto offers a significantly different approach compared to the standardized HTTP/SSL combination that forms the backbone of classic HTTPS. One of its key advantages is that it was designed to overcome the limitations of the TLS/SSL protocol, which is the foundation of HTTPS security—especially in mobile environments. Since MTProto operates directly over UDP instead of dealing with TCP connections, it handles latency and connection drops more effectively. Ever noticed how messages in Telegram arrive almost instantly? That’s partly because it doesn’t have to manage the constant TCP connections that traditional protocols rely on.
However, this uniqueness comes with a trade-off. By adopting its own standards, MTProto makes security audits more challenging. Unlike widely used and continuously updated protocols like TLS/SSL, MTProto’s codebase and encryption methods have undergone far less scrutiny from third parties. While it has its advantages, its long-term resilience in terms of privacy remains unproven without extensive community review over time.
First off, MTProto’s practical advantages over HTTPS or TLS mainly come from its **client-first** design and direct integration with apps like Telegram. Unlike HTTPS, which relies on PKI certificates (publicly trusted), MTProto uses an asymmetric key system (RSA/Elliptic Curve 25519), where *each account has a globally unique identifier* (user_id + public key). This eliminates the need for certificate authorities, simplifying the initial connection (no need to trust a third party like Let’s Encrypt) while maintaining strong client-side cryptography.
The real practical benefit? **Speed and resistance to downgrade attacks**. MTProto’s handshake is optimized for mobile/unstable networks: it negotiates the strongest available encryption in just 1-2 RTTs (round-trip times), whereas TLS can get bogged down with heavy renegotiations. I’ve seen cases where malicious operators blocked or throttled HTTPS to certain sites, but MTProto stays smooth because Telegram has its own infrastructure (geo-politically distributed DCs) and automatically manages alternative routes. The downside? **Traffic obfuscation**: the protocol uses standard binary requests over additional encryption layers, making network inspection (e.g., for corporate firewalls) more difficult.
In practice, I worked on a messaging app based on MTProto, and feedback was mixed: from a dev perspective, it’s a nightmare to audit because the code isn’t open (except for parts of Telegram). Not to mention the debates around their proprietary protocol, which has had flaws in the past (like the 2015 exploit via cipher version downgrades). If you want MTProto without the "black box" issues, use a library like [TDLib](https://core.telegram.org/tdlib), but be ready to manually handle spec updates. Otherwise, for mainstream use, **it’s proven reliable**… as long as you trust the implementation.