Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Eating a Flash Drive | Main | Guide to Microsoft Police Forensic Services » March 8, 2010Google in The OnionMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—Responding to recent public outcries over its handling of private data, search giant Google offered a wide-ranging and eerily well-informed apology to its millions of users Monday. Posted on March 8, 2010 at 2:24 PM • 18 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. Carl • March 8, 2010 3:24 PM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hIwDHB8p137eTGUBA/9NQYRkctR7vrSMugpe942JOVbSGWocjel32Kmq4+rJup7A iEYEARECAAYFAkuVan4ACgkQf//iPmSrRDoisQCgs7pxuVGHzSA6Gbf14G5i7SQr Bruce should be able to read that, no one else should without quite a lot of time. Even Google will have trouble with it. Micah • March 8, 2010 3:52 PM @Carl: I doubt Google will have any trouble whatsoever about your encrypted comment, because they won't care one bit! Benton Jackson • March 8, 2010 4:06 PM I know this is satire, but I think I'm still going to keep the post-it on the camera on my laptop. Carl "SAI" Mitchell • March 8, 2010 4:50 PM @Micah: Quite true. But it's an example, there is a solution. It's just time consuming to use, and no one really cares. I doubt Bruce will read it, and he's the one with the private key. As opposed to a normal message: redbrain • March 8, 2010 5:02 PM Evidently that guy carl who posted his signed and encrypted GPG message doesn't understand what GPG is for. Anyone who accepts and trusts your public key just to read that would break the whole web of trust that PGP was designed for! Sam Edwards • March 8, 2010 7:07 PM @Carl Nick P • March 8, 2010 7:09 PM @ redbrain It's ok. Carl was using the PGP extension to Gmail. The encryption is irrelevant. They are undoubtedly responding to his comment as we speak. vwm • March 9, 2010 3:26 AM @redbrain: why would you need to trust Carl's public key? The recipient can decrypt the message and everyone can check the authenticity without placing any trust in the Carl's key. The benefit of this might be small: we can check if the next message signed by Carl is from the same Carl, no more. But certainly that does not break the whole web of trust. Eve • March 9, 2010 4:03 AM @Carl If you're going to encrypt a post saying "First post!" you should at least make sure you were first ;-) I have just discovered 'The Onion - America's Finest News Source' and find it very entertaining, and this was after googling the name. I only discovered this through social networking, so this brings up the concerns about privacy of my search habits etc a couple of posts ago. I only discovered the social networking by Googling the social networking names. From a security perspective Google probably has the information that the article was poking fun at, but I would not have known all this before Googles help. What would our lives be like without Google? 2nd Question - How many of us first found the Schneier Blog by googling it? vedaal • March 9, 2010 8:56 AM @sam edwards GPG (GnuPG) is open-PGP, and can do anything that PGP can (and then some) except use split keys and ADK's. It doesn't bother with wiping or containers as there are other excellent free open source programs that do that Any key in PGP will be recognized in GPG. --vedaal Craig - I, for one, first found his blog through the Cryptogram newsletter, which I first subscribed to via email in 1998. I'm pretty sure I first found out about the newsletter in a Usenet newsgroup, but I could be wrong; it's been a couple of years. :) generic • March 10, 2010 1:39 PM Craig: "2nd Question - How many of us first found the Schneier Blog by googling it?" Close enough, I found it (just recently) through feedly, a Google Reader based tool, through the recommendations feature - meaning (I guess) enough people "shared" their use of the feed. Luke • March 12, 2010 2:05 PM @F
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Geoffrey Stone.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments