3 ms·
If you used an encryption scheme that is no longer considered secure, the correct response is not to rely on the fact that the server room is under lock and key
by kspacewalk2 5y ago
If you used an encryption scheme that is no longer considered secure, the correct response is not to rely on the fact that the server room is under lock and key and your country has, like, really nice laws and stuff. It's to change the encryption scheme.
The XKCD cartoon is another way of stating (part of) my point - it doesn't matter where the stuff is stored (provided you encrypt it properly), what matters is the point at which it can be accessed. A dead owner's encrypted iPhone in the FBI forensics lab is more secure from intrusion by the FBI than an unencrypted hard drive I locked in my basement. Even if I use, like, 10 locks, and they don't (yet) know it's there.
- ajdude 5y agoI think the point the parent comment was trying to make was, consider if you are storing data in North Korea; it’s 2010 and your encryption scheme is considered secure. At some point, North Korea has copied the encrypted data for later data mining. In 2021 that encryption scheme for some reason is no longer considered secure. Even if you stepped using it in 2014, the data from the time you used it up until you stopped may be compromised.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoOnly compared to an unencrypted hard drive locked in an American basement. An unencrypted hard drive stored in a locked Chinese basement is probably quite a bit more secure from FBI intrusion than the encrypted iPhone that they physically possess. Physical access still matters a lot.