And the relevance of the picture at the top is?
Facebook's security now sexier, with killer curves
Facebook has boosted its security chops with support for better bang-for-buck email encryption. Menlo Park now supports OpenPGP's standard elliptic curve cryptography public keys meaning security and privacy pundits can post their public keys which will then be used to encrypt email notifications. It supports NIST curves P- …
COMMENTS
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 10:00 GMT JeffyPoooh
Key and Algorithm Security .NE. security
Some unnoticed subtle flaw tends to dominate the real world examples.
Do these implementations avoid key reuse? Numbers used once? Assume there's a flaw.
Given the size of flash memory, somebody should start selling little boxes to fill up pairs of storage devices, USB Flash or 4TB SSDs, with billions of One Time Pads. Hardware noise RND -> Qty 2 OTPs.
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 10:09 GMT Lost In Clouds of Data
Ask not for whom the (security) bell tolls
Am I the only one scratching their head trying to put the words 'Facebook' and 'Security' together in an actually meaningful way?
Secure for whom? Sure Joe Punter can encrypt their data whilst in flight and potentially at rest, with some probably real nifty neato encryption, and kudos for Facebook et all for doing this - but - Facebook itself is an open cesspit of information that Zuck Inc has enabled itself to freely distribute in the name of 'advertising'.
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 26th September 2015 09:14 GMT jake
@ Lost all faith...(was: Re: @sabroni (was: ::yawns::))
"No you didn't Jake, you said anyone that needed it already has it and has since 1980."
Yes. I did. What part of reality do you not comprehend?
"And your method is cumbersome and awkward for 99.999% of of NORMAL people."
Ah. I see. "It's HARD! to understand!" Why yes, yes it is.
How many of the idiots using the system under discussion actually understand it? More importantly, how many will continue using it after somebody cracks it?
-
Monday 28th September 2015 08:21 GMT sabroni
Re: @ Lost all faith...(was: @sabroni (was: ::yawns::))
"Anyone who actually needs secure email already has it." <> "it was readily available."
"It's HARD! to understand!" why you're arguing about this. Your first post clearly said that those who needed it already had it. You twist and turn like a mouthy smartarse hoisted by his own petard....
-
Monday 28th September 2015 14:52 GMT jake
Re: @ Lost all faith...(was: @sabroni (was: ::yawns::))
""It's HARD! to understand!" why you're arguing about this."
I'm not arguing about this. I'm pointing out the obvious. If you have needed strong encryption, it has been available for decades.
As a side-note, that's "hoise by your own petard", just because I'm archaic & petulant.
Or just an old fart, if you prefer ;-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-