3 ms·

Is this really the kind of article we want here? > A study found shortcomings in the generation of the random numbers used to scramble or encrypt data. > The

Is this really the kind of article we want here? > A study found shortcomings in the generation of the random numbers used to scramble or encrypt data. > The hard-to-guess numbers are vital to many security measures that prevent data theft. > But the sources of data that some computers call on to generate these numbers often run dry. > This, they warned, could mean random numbers are more susceptible to well-known attacks that leave personal data vulnerable. I get that you have to simplify for the ordinary people but this looks like talking to a five-year-old.

colinbartlett 11y ago
Funny, I came to the comments to remark about how nice it was to see an article very clearly articulate the issue. Yes, I generally understand these concepts, but I am not a security professional and found the explanation useful both for my own comprehension and for improving my ability to relay complex technical topics to non technical people.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  I get that it's good to educate the general public but first of all, we're not exactly the general public here, and something even a little bit more substantial would have been nice. Second, this description is so vague, it could apply to almost anything. When the next openssl vulnerability, or android bug, or any other crypto weakness appears, you could almost run the same article: "Web's secret numbers are too weak. These numbers are vital to security. They prevent data theft. Your data could be vulnerable." While true, it's pointless.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
amouat 11y ago
I submitted it, and that thought did cross my mind. However, I see someone has linked the papers with the original research in a comment which allows anyone curious to dig into the actual details. At any rate, it's always interesting to see how the mainstream media cover computing/hacking news.
davidgerard 11y ago
It's relevant and useful to know that this is now a matter of mainstream concern.
davnicwil 11y ago
I guess you're not familiar with the BBC's tech journalism? TLDR: It's interesting to HN readers only on the meta level (how does a non-technical readership consume tech news in 2015). BBC tech news makes very strange reading for someone in the tech world. All the technical terms we use to be precise about things are replaced with broad, ostensibly more understandable, terms that do often sound very childish in comparison - sometimes so much so that they do actually obscure the meaning and even the truthfulness of the message. As such it can make for frustrating reading, only because you wish there was a better way to communicate these ideas that doesn't mislead people or dumb down the information so much that it's basically without value. There almost certainly is, to be honest, but it's very difficult, and so probably an unwise investment of effort for the likes of the BBC, whose readers are mainly there to read 'general' news stories and might skim a couple of tech stories as an aside. It's probably much like a Physics PhD going back to science classes in school - "I see what you're trying to say here, and I perhaps can see why you're saying it in the way you are, to introduce a concept in a way you think is most accessible, but what you're saying isn't actually fully correct, and I find it irritating that you're implying it is".

colinbartlett 11y ago

Funny, I came to the comments to remark about how nice it was to see an article very clearly articulate the issue. Yes, I generally understand these concepts, but I am not a security professional and found the explanation useful both for my own comprehension and for improving my ability to relay complex technical topics to non technical people.

pilsetnieks 11y ago
I get that it's good to educate the general public but first of all, we're not exactly the general public here, and something even a little bit more substantial would have been nice. Second, this description is so vague, it could apply to almost anything. When the next openssl vulnerability, or android bug, or any other crypto weakness appears, you could almost run the same article: "Web's secret numbers are too weak. These numbers are vital to security. They prevent data theft. Your data could be vulnerable." While true, it's pointless.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

amouat 11y ago

I submitted it, and that thought did cross my mind. However, I see someone has linked the papers with the original research in a comment which allows anyone curious to dig into the actual details. At any rate, it's always interesting to see how the mainstream media cover computing/hacking news.

davidgerard 11y ago

It's relevant and useful to know that this is now a matter of mainstream concern.

davnicwil 11y ago

I guess you're not familiar with the BBC's tech journalism? TLDR: It's interesting to HN readers only on the meta level (how does a non-technical readership consume tech news in 2015). BBC tech news makes very strange reading for someone in the tech world. All the technical terms we use to be precise about things are replaced with broad, ostensibly more understandable, terms that do often sound very childish in comparison - sometimes so much so that they do actually obscure the meaning and even the truthfulness of the message. As such it can make for frustrating reading, only because you wish there was a better way to communicate these ideas that doesn't mislead people or dumb down the information so much that it's basically without value. There almost certainly is, to be honest, but it's very difficult, and so probably an unwise investment of effort for the likes of the BBC, whose readers are mainly there to read 'general' news stories and might skim a couple of tech stories as an aside. It's probably much like a Physics PhD going back to science classes in school - "I see what you're trying to say here, and I perhaps can see why you're saying it in the way you are, to introduce a concept in a way you think is most accessible, but what you're saying isn't actually fully correct, and I find it irritating that you're implying it is".