4 ms·
Almost no one comprehends https either. Yet it seems to work well enough to protect people. The user-visible part of this is very limited. Remember, no one is
by Carpetsmoker 8y ago
Almost no one comprehends https either. Yet it seems to work well enough to protect people.
The user-visible part of this is very limited. Remember, no one is expected to sign their own emails: just verify that the signature is correct (which the software will do). It's not that different from verifying a handwritten signature.
- coldtea 8y ago>Almost no one comprehends https either. Yet it seems to work well enough to protect people. That's because it's entirely up to site operators (and browser/os vendors to add trusted registries) and not to the user. If it was to the end user to install something and manage certs for https, it wouldn't work at all...
- detaro 8y agoPrivate use? yeah, not so great with the current state of software for it. Company environments: that's what sysadmins are for. You see the occasional company where everything is signed with S/MIME.
- pard68 8y agoArticle author seems to be suggesting that Gmail et al. manage the key signing though, so still the same as https in that regard.
- seanwilson 8y ago> Almost no one comprehends https either. Yet it seems to work well enough to protect people. HTTPS is notoriously difficult for users to understand. Most people don't even know what a server is. At least with emails you have analogies to do with sending paper letters to letterboxes that map pretty well. I think the big push for HTTPS from the last few years is in part because Google claim they now give you an SEO benefit from it, HTTP2 (i.e. for better performance) requires it and Google + Firefox show more scary user visible warnings than they used to for non-HTTPS sites.
- jhasse 8y agoBut HTTPS equivalent for email would be DKIM, not PGP.