4 ms·

Yeah, we're not talking about credit card info. Why not have post@ plus a secret@ available in your options. The more technically inclined could easily use the

Yeah, we're not talking about credit card info. Why not have post@ plus a secret@ available in your options. The more technically inclined could easily use the second, most likely safe enough, system. I really hope they don't complicate an otherwise zen-like experience.

piotrSikora 16y ago
Security shouldn't be optional. And this wouldn't fix the issue at all... I bet that 80%+ of users would leave the default post@ submission address.
- neilc 16y ago
  Security shouldn't be optional. That seems like a very dogmatic attitude. Security almost always comes at some cost (e.g., inconvenience), and sometimes that cost is not worth the benefit.
  - piotrSikora 16y ago
    Yes, I agree with you. It pretty much always comes at some cost and "user-friendliness" hurts most of the times. But it is exactly that "easy-to-use" design that leads to security holes like the one presented here. And I stand by what I wrote earlier, if you want to add some security options then they should be enabled by default. Having even the best security system in-place is useless when it's disabled. Isn't it?
- jtheory 16y ago
  The cost -- if someone successfully manages to spoof their way into your posterous blog -- isn't very high. You'll probably notice fairly quickly, it's hard for "the bad guy" to use for actual gain, and there's no money involved either way. I use a service called Postful to send snail mail via email, that has security along these lines -- I email them a PDF with a mailing address in the subject line, and they post a letter and charge me a buck. They give security options (in my case, I include a "secret" word in the subject line, and there's a confirmation link that's emailed to me), but if I wanted, I could even let anyway send email to a given postful.com address, and it would mail a letter on my dime with no confirmation. I haven't heard about any abuses.

piotrSikora 16y ago

Security shouldn't be optional. And this wouldn't fix the issue at all... I bet that 80%+ of users would leave the default post@ submission address.

neilc 16y ago
Security shouldn't be optional. That seems like a very dogmatic attitude. Security almost always comes at some cost (e.g., inconvenience), and sometimes that cost is not worth the benefit.
- piotrSikora 16y ago
  Yes, I agree with you. It pretty much always comes at some cost and "user-friendliness" hurts most of the times. But it is exactly that "easy-to-use" design that leads to security holes like the one presented here. And I stand by what I wrote earlier, if you want to add some security options then they should be enabled by default. Having even the best security system in-place is useless when it's disabled. Isn't it?
jtheory 16y ago
The cost -- if someone successfully manages to spoof their way into your posterous blog -- isn't very high. You'll probably notice fairly quickly, it's hard for "the bad guy" to use for actual gain, and there's no money involved either way. I use a service called Postful to send snail mail via email, that has security along these lines -- I email them a PDF with a mailing address in the subject line, and they post a letter and charge me a buck. They give security options (in my case, I include a "secret" word in the subject line, and there's a confirmation link that's emailed to me), but if I wanted, I could even let anyway send email to a given postful.com address, and it would mail a letter on my dime with no confirmation. I haven't heard about any abuses.