3 ms·
When it comes to SaaSes, absolutely nothing. It's all social. Even knowing the owners doesn't give you much more assurance that it's legit, unless they're very
by jchw 4y ago
When it comes to SaaSes, absolutely nothing. It's all social. Even knowing the owners doesn't give you much more assurance that it's legit, unless they're very well known.
That said, most liars are really really bad at lying. "We care about your privacy! Now let us load 1000 tracking libraries, kthxbai" is pretty easy to spot.
I think the scarier case is when dealing with a government adversary. They're simply not as stupid, and you never know when it could happen: https://archive.ph/rI8mE https://archive.ph/rI8mE
For those cases, I get unnerved when things seem too good to be true. If I didn't know former Mullvad employee(s), I'd be deeply concerned about them, too.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoThankfully, most people shouldn't consider "government adversary" high in their "threat assessment".
- jchw 4y agoI think "targeted government adversary" shouldn't be. But government in general? https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted-phones-that-actually-copied-their-messages https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted... Maybe.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoI mean, "government in general" is kind of meaningless, some governments are much more of a threat to some people than others. Also, while your example is great (and I think I have seen it predicted !), criminal organizations aren't "most" nor "people" (more like businesses ?).
- tlogan 4y agoIt is not about liar. The owner of the web site is probably nice and all these things. Some social proof (LinkedIn, address etc) is really needed. I always check LinkedIn’s to see where that person worked, what does it do, etc. Not a good test but it is better than nothing. But on the other hand, the owner can be NK. Or what if it gets taken over by NK? Or what if somebody starts claiming that they were running this business and it was hijacked?