3 ms·
This sounds like the US military's rational for not scrambling video feeds, and using armour piercing rounds in the Middle East. The Soviet Union can unscramble
by wisty 15y ago
This sounds like the US military's rational for not scrambling video feeds, and using armour piercing rounds in the Middle East. The Soviet Union can unscramble insecure cryptography, and their soldiers will have armour, so insecure encryption and non-armour piercing bullets are considered harmful.
JS encryption is certainly less secure than SSL, and may give a false sense of security to people who want to use it as a replacement.
On the other hand, it may be better than nothing.
- jbri 15y agoThe part you're missing is the bit where ad-hoc JS crypto takes longer to implement and is more expensive than turning on SSL.
- rmc 15y agoUS military's rational for not scrambling video feeds Bruce Schneier wrote about why encrypting the video feed of predator drones was not as straightforward: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_p... The command and control channel is, and always has been, encrypted -- because that's both more important and easier to manage. UAVs are flown by airmen sitting at comfortable desks on U.S. military bases, where key management is simpler. But the video feed is different. It needs to be available to all sorts of people, of varying nationalities and security clearances, on a variety of field terminals, in a variety of geographical areas, in all sorts of conditions -- with everything constantly changing. Key management in this environment would be a nightmare.