3 ms·

At its most basic, encryption should be a thing that just happens, out of sight and mind of the user. Yes, that leaves vulnerability, but people generally don’t

At its most basic, encryption should be a thing that just happens, out of sight and mind of the user. Yes, that leaves vulnerability, but people generally don’t want to have to deal with it. Most of us are more interested in getting work done, rather than fiddling with the tools.

diablo1 7y ago
> out of sight and mind of the user Which can be sometimes dangerous as more and more crypto is designed to be set-and-forget. It leaves the windows open for bad actors to exploit such simplicity and introduce backdoors when no-one was looking. Vigilance in managing keys (and integrity of the cryptosystem) is still required.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  You can require something people won't do all you want, and it doesn't get done. Cryptographic theory breaks down at the UX layer. If you try to improve security by cycling passwords too frequently, users start writing them on sticky notes tacked to their monitors. If you require users to keep their private keys in their own possession, users lose their private keys, get angry when you can't reconstitute those keys for them, and go use a service that can offer that feature. I think there's a reason the entire ecosystem has moved in the direction of trusted actors who could, in theory, exploit that trust to know everything they can about the signal passing through their trusted zone (with those who trust nobody still operating independently as a fringe minority).
  - snarf21 7y ago
    Exactly. The challenge is the balance between security and convenience. The issue is that without full management of keys and building of source that has been signed and then investigated, you have to trust someone. I think this is the issue, if you decide to trust, then you trust. The harder question is who can you actually trust.
mvanbaak 7y ago
you mean, like having people to remember to bring their house keys when they leave so they can get back in? Yes, it's an extra step that has nothing to do with the task I want to complete, but the price I pay is totally fair for the security I get for it.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  That's a really decent example, because if you forget your house keys, you aren't forever denied access to your house / your house doesn't collapse into a shower of noise, never to be reconstituted. If it did, you can pretty much guarantee people would either stop using house keys completely and just leave the key in the lock all the time or would come up with schemes to make it impossible to lose the key (such as locking the key in a tiny box, and then that box is secured with a key that doesn't cause the box to burst into flames if the second key goes missing). In non-digital life, we make the tradeoff of less-than-perfect security for convenience, backed by the law (i.e. any competent locksmith can break into your house, and the things that keep them from doing it are (a) a general societal understanding that cracking open someone's front door without consent is a really dick move, and (b) if you do it, you're trespassing and can go to jail).

diablo1 7y ago

> out of sight and mind of the user Which can be sometimes dangerous as more and more crypto is designed to be set-and-forget. It leaves the windows open for bad actors to exploit such simplicity and introduce backdoors when no-one was looking. Vigilance in managing keys (and integrity of the cryptosystem) is still required.

shadowgovt 7y ago
You can require something people won't do all you want, and it doesn't get done. Cryptographic theory breaks down at the UX layer. If you try to improve security by cycling passwords too frequently, users start writing them on sticky notes tacked to their monitors. If you require users to keep their private keys in their own possession, users lose their private keys, get angry when you can't reconstitute those keys for them, and go use a service that can offer that feature. I think there's a reason the entire ecosystem has moved in the direction of trusted actors who could, in theory, exploit that trust to know everything they can about the signal passing through their trusted zone (with those who trust nobody still operating independently as a fringe minority).
- snarf21 7y ago
  Exactly. The challenge is the balance between security and convenience. The issue is that without full management of keys and building of source that has been signed and then investigated, you have to trust someone. I think this is the issue, if you decide to trust, then you trust. The harder question is who can you actually trust.

mvanbaak 7y ago

you mean, like having people to remember to bring their house keys when they leave so they can get back in? Yes, it's an extra step that has nothing to do with the task I want to complete, but the price I pay is totally fair for the security I get for it.

shadowgovt 7y ago
That's a really decent example, because if you forget your house keys, you aren't forever denied access to your house / your house doesn't collapse into a shower of noise, never to be reconstituted. If it did, you can pretty much guarantee people would either stop using house keys completely and just leave the key in the lock all the time or would come up with schemes to make it impossible to lose the key (such as locking the key in a tiny box, and then that box is secured with a key that doesn't cause the box to burst into flames if the second key goes missing). In non-digital life, we make the tradeoff of less-than-perfect security for convenience, backed by the law (i.e. any competent locksmith can break into your house, and the things that keep them from doing it are (a) a general societal understanding that cracking open someone's front door without consent is a really dick move, and (b) if you do it, you're trespassing and can go to jail).