Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

E-commerce Single Sign-On Not Dead Yet

Posted by timothy on from the he'll-have-to-do-a-lot-of-convincing dept.

FullyIonized writes "A few years ago Microsoft's Passport technology made headlines as Microsoft predicted e-commerce nirvana and conspiracists predicted a new Big Brother. Not to be outdone, Sun spearheaded the Liberty Alliance . Years later, I still don't have a single sign-on, not that that's a bad thing. Enter Andre Durand who started his first business with BBS software, then headed up Jabber, and now has started Ping Identity. The big distinction: the federated identity software is open-source. The Denver Post has the story."

47 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. single logon means.. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..single login to phish.

    'nuff said(that's enough, not snuff).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:single logon means.. by Taladar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because you don't have the choice to decide yourself wether a given login is important enough to justify a different password.

      --
      Linux is not Windows
    2. Re:single logon means.. by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Insightful
      single login to phish.

      And how many people use the same username and password everywhere already? There are so many websites out there, each wanting you to sign up, that it's impossible for any human to memorize hundreds of usernames and passwords. They all wind up being the same, or very close to the same. Or worse, they get written down on a piece of paper under the keyboard.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    3. Re:single logon means.. by mdfst13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Because you don't have the choice to decide yourself wether a given login is important enough to justify a different password."

      Why not?

      Seriously, why not. It would be easy enough to add the ability to specify an extra password for certain accounts. If that's not in the various solutions that are currently available, that's a weakness in the *solutions*, not the concept. I couldn't find any information explaining if SAML or Ping's implementation included this capability or not. If they do not, then it should be added.

      Frankly, for most sites with passwords, I don't really need a password at all. For example, with /. I only need it to verify that my computer (and account) is doing the posting. Same thing for recommendations on Amazon (although more authentication is needed for purchases). That's why I currently allow those sites (and others) to store my login info in cookies.

    4. Re:single logon means.. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And how many people use the same username and password everywhere already? There are so many websites out there, each wanting you to sign up,

      Solution: classes of passwords.

      • The stuff that you really care about (your bank account, your login at your computer at home, ...) all gets different passwords
      • The stuff that you care a little bit less about (bug reporting sites for various software, Slashdot, wikipedia, etc.) share a password. Note: when vandalizing wikipedia, you should use different passwords for your different trolling accounts, because they can (and do...) correlate various trolls by their passwords. So you just use login concatenated with your_common_password.
      • The stuff that you care even less about (NYT, other online papers, ...) share another password
      • That stuff that you care still less about (password at work, ...) yet another one
      Stuff of same "security level" shares same password, so things stay manageable, while still keeping reasonable security.
    5. Re:single logon means.. by mdfst13 · · Score: 2

      "I think you misunderstood."

      I think most people would read it as I did, considering that you quoted "How is this less security" in your post rather than "most users will have the same user/pass combination for most if not all their logins." Something like 'I think SSO is actually more secure, because...' might have clarified your post (or I may still be missing your point). Further, the same objection applies.

      If someone uses the same password for admin on their box as they do on throwaway sites (NY Times, etc.), then they are using that password policy badly. However, it is quite reasonable to use the same password to log in to both the NY Times and the Washington Post.

      Btw, you might want to go back and reread the post to which you replied. Rereading your responses, you seem to be assuming that "this" (from the first quote) is sharing passwords for multiple logins rather than single sign on. I'm fairly certain that the original poster meant "this" to mean single sign on. I.e. how is single sign on less secure than sharing passwords across multiple sites.

    6. Re:single logon means.. by rmezzari · · Score: 2, Funny

      "it's impossible for any human to memorize hundreds of usernames and passwords"

      Well, there is this nice software named "Gator eWallet" from the folks at Gator who helps you keep you passwords... Try it out! http://www.gator.com/home2.html

      --
      "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
    7. Re:single logon means.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're talking about putting the passwords on a networked device vs writing it/printing it on paper for security then the latter is more secure.

      The risks from the latter are known, can be evaluated and can be stopped. They pretty much boil down to stopping anyone else seeing the paper before you destroy it and trusting your staff. The risks from the former are unknown, how many holes are there in your network & software.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "protected database". They can't use one-way encryption on the passwords because they wouldn't be able to get them back out of the database. Even with key encryption you're then back to how safe the physical storage of the keys is which is the same issue as writing down the password ...only now you've added a lot more software (hence risk) into the equation.

    8. Re:single logon means.. by Bishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USB memory stick also has the disadvantage of encryption: You need a password to access the passwords. There is also the risk of file corruption. The purpose of the passwords on paper or in a simple text file is for worst case recovery (admin dies, or immeditate access is required). Paper is often best as computer media is more prone to corruption. The physical security of the passwords is paramount. Total security is an impossible goal, instead one must manage the risks. (Manageing risk is a cliche, but it is true.) Adding encryption increases some risks. Improveing physical security usually does not increase the risk, but may be prohibitively expensive.

      My glib example of leaving the passwords on a desk as sufficient security is a rare case. For most organizations a safe in the server room is probably sufficient. If an attacker has access to the safe, then the attacker could just as easily install keyloggers on all the servers.

  2. What's wrong with... by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Interesting
    PGP for online transactions? Heck, even stupid stuff like bulletin boards and slashdot. I'm sick of having to make up new user ids and secure passwords for every freakin' site on the web. Why not just let everyone post PGP signed messages?

    Seriously, I'm not asking in jest. Is there a problem with the technology as it stands?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:What's wrong with... by onion2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, I'm not asking in jest. Is there a problem with the technology as it stands?

      Yes. It'd be a pain in the arse for web developers.

      All these single sign-in systems are made (or broken) by the web developers who implement them in the sites they build. If theres an easy way to integrate the technology into your code quickly and cheaply then people will put it in. If it takes a week of reading docs and another week of coding then its never going to get used by the people who'll be rolling it out onto the net.

      --
      http://twitter.com/onion2k
    2. Re:What's wrong with... by otisaardvark · · Score: 4, Insightful
      These are just observations, and some of them are very overcomeable and possibly stupid.

      Security of private keys. This is not really different from security of any other 'passphrase' except it is local.

      Computation. Especially for bulletin boards - /. has a huge number of comments every day. To PGP-process each one would require much more expense on their side with no obvious benefits.

      Trusted key repositories. If something like this was to become huge then you would need central databases of everyone's public keys (far more scalable than current incarnations). This is tied in with:

      Identity management. There is nothing stopping you from having multiple public/private key combinations. (OK, there is nothing stopping you from having multiple /. accounts). But there are uses where you need uniqueness online. Yes, this is also a problem for any single sign-on scheme. Verification has privacy implications unless handled very carefully.

      Single point of failure. Regardless of how well tested the PGP encryption algorithms are, cryptanalysis will continue. Security should almost always have breadth to increase resilience. To be honest I would probably consider this to be an acceptable risk for non-critical uses.

      Training. In order to be useful a lot of people have to use PGP. The concept of a username/passphrase is far easier to digest than PGP-signing.

      There are probably many other obvious concerns. Note: it could easily become widespread, but I'm just saying that there are issues which need to be addressed.

    3. Re:What's wrong with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that I can answer some of your concerns:

      Security of private keys. This is not really different from security of any other 'passphrase' except it is local.

      The distinction is extremely important, because having a local mechanism means that the key owner is autonomously in control of its security, rather than being architecturally obliged to defer security to some third party. If you want to lock the key inside some other security mechanism, such as a biometric token for example, that decision is transparent to the architecture.

      Computation. Especially for bulletin boards - /. has a huge number of comments every day. To PGP-process each one would require much more expense on their side with no obvious benefits.

      Not all applications require highly assured identity. You've just given a good example of where the cost/benefit tradeoff goes one way. There are many examples, such as banking or voting, where the tradeoff would go the other way.

      It should be noted that secure identity and anonymity are not mutually exclusive, by the way. You simply need to establish an authority whose policy is to issue anonymous identities. Applications can then decide whether to accept that particular authority.

      Trusted key repositories. If something like this was to become huge then you would need central databases of everyone's public keys (far more scalable than current incarnations).

      Scalability and deployment are indeed limiting factors, though less so as computation and network performance continues to improve exponentially. Also, the retooling of applications is far from trivial. In practice, it's the main limiting factor at the moment, and it's starting to get a lot of attention.

      But no identity infrastructure needs to bebe built globally when most of the value is relatively local. My own identity requirements, for example, span a limited geography and a limited range of interests. People are not the only sort of identity principals that will eventually emerge, but they are a useful place to start.

      All these are reasons to favor a federated identity model, because it lets us begin with small and useful implementations and scale up as required. Yes, in a sense we're avoiding the problem, and I think we need to acknowledge that and plan for it. But there are more immediate problems which should keep us busy enough for now.

      Identity management. There is nothing stopping you from having multiple public/private key combinations. (OK, there is nothing stopping you from having multiple /. accounts). But there are uses where you need uniqueness online. Yes, this is also a problem for any single sign-on scheme. Verification has privacy implications unless handled very carefully.

      There is no requirement for any individual to be limited to a single identity. Some identity models recognize this explicitly. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent you reserving an identity for some specific domain, such as legal use.

      Single point of failure. Regardless of how well tested the PGP encryption algorithms are, cryptanalysis will continue. Security should almost always have breadth to increase resilience. To be honest I would probably consider this to be an acceptable risk for non-critical uses.

      This is why cryptographic systems such as X.509 and PGP offer a selection of algorithms, and in general why modularity and peer review are especially important in these systems. But these comments also hold for much of our technological infrastructure. The DNS has a small number of root servers, for example. All these vulnerabilities merit attention, of course, but again we are usually willing to submit them to some kind of cost/benefit analysis.

      Training. In order to be useful a lot of people have to use PGP. The conc

  3. Ping Identity Made Simple by amigoro · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ping Identity made simple.

    Moderate this comment
    Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
    Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

    --


    Nothing to see here
  4. About time too by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no way I can keep track of the 200-odd different passwords I have - so they all end up being simple variants of the same one. Federated single sign on would be a boon - if it was handled correctly.

    --
    My Journal
    1. Re:About time too by oexeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      > There's no way I can keep track of the 200-odd different passwords I have

      Don't worry, I keep track of all your passwords for you

    2. Re:About time too by Errtu76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      May i suggest you take a look at KeePass Store all your passwords in a single database that you can access with either one master-password, or combined with a key-disk that you have to insert first.

    3. Re:About time too by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's also YaPS for Palm OS.

    4. Re:About time too by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some OSes/browsers come with a tool to keep hold on them. I'd sooner have that info on my computer than have a single login to all manner of sites.

  5. .NET Passport helps you sell out your children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Kids Passport helps participating sites and services obtain parental consent to collect, use, or disclose a child's personal information. You or your child can register his or her .NET Passport account."

    As opposed to "...will ensure children's personal information is kept confidential...".

  6. Whore-free article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    High-stakes venture
    Funding quest a gamble in new Internet economy
    By Ross Wehner
    Denver Post Staff Writer

    Sunday, November 28, 2004 -

    Andre Durand adjusts his black cowboy hat and eyes a roomful of tech-industry players milling around blackjack tables at Broomfield's Omni Interlocken Resort.

    It's casino night at Digital ID World, a high-level Internet conference that costs $1,795 per person. Durand, 36, is a founder of the conference and has a lot riding on it this year.

    He, like many other Internet entrepreneurs, is fighting to come back four years after the tech economy meltdown.

    Everyone here knows Durand as a whiz kid who started two multi-million-dollar companies before he was 32. But the money came easier back in the 1990s.

    Durand's firm, Ping Identity, is on the verge of launching software that could make Internet commerce easier and more secure. Companies such as Microsoft, IBM and Hewlett-Packard are chasing the same solution.

    But he needs a lot of money just to keep swimming in that shark tank - at least $8 million in venture capital. He needs the help of the people in this room.

    Nearby is Thor Hauge, an investor from Nokia Innovent, the venture capital arm of Nokia, which invested $250,000 in Ping early on.

    Durand then spies Bob Blakely, IBM's point man for computer security. He's in charge of protecting some of the largest networks in the world. One deal with IBM could transform Ping from a tiny startup into a recognized industry leader.

    It's time to get this party rolling, Durand thinks.

    He leaves his gin and tonic at the bar and heads toward an electronic bull, set up for the event. Real bull riders need an eight-second ride. Durand mounts the bull and hangs on for nine glorious seconds, arms flying above his head, before flying onto the mat. When he springs to his feet, people applaud.

    Durand heads to the cocktail bar, reaches behind it and grabs a brand-new $200 Nokia N-Gage. Any self-respecting geek knows it's the coolest combination cellphone, e-mail device and video game around.

    Durand slaps backs at every table and offers the N-Gage to whoever stays on the bull the longest. Within 10 minutes, there is a steady stream of people hooting and hollering and getting tossed into the air.

    Even Blakely rides the bull. But Craig Wirths, an old friend of Durand's, wins the N-Gage with a 33-second ride.

    Andre Durand is standing in the casino of the new Internet economy, where having a great idea isn't good enough anymore. To succeed now, Durand must also become a true chief executive, someone who can execute a business plan and devise the DNA of a company that will last.

    Like Microsoft, for example.

    The next day, Durand will help unveil Ping's first software product at Digital ID World. Then he and a Ping board member will spend two weeks in California's Silicon Valley meeting with a dozen venture capital firms who chew and spit out guys like Durand every day.

    A lot is riding on the next few weeks.

    Payday for first company

    A communications firm that Durand began when he was 25 was acquired for $10 million in 1998.

    Durand has worked insane hours for most of his adult life. He launched Durand Communications in his hometown of Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1993 at the age of 25. He worked from dawn to nearly midnight seven days a week. The company sold software to people who posted online bulletin boards, before the rise of the Internet

    His drive paid off in 1998 when Durand sold the company to Denver-based Webb Interactive Services for $10 million in a stock swap. After Durand paid off his angel investors, he was left with more than $1 million in Webb Interactive stock.

    Part of the deal was that Durand keep working with Webb. He drove from California to Denver with a bike and all of his possessions, which fit neatly in three boxes.

    The first person he met in Denver was his future wife, Kim Gunning, who worked at We

  7. Why? by JNighthawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why do you have so many different passwords? Just come up with a few sufficienly complex ones. I've got 4 different passwords that I use, each having their own "security level". Slashdot is a level 1, since I don't care about someone stealing my account here, whereas my account for World of Warcraft is a level 4 :-P

    --
    Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    1. Re:Why? by HawkingMattress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well it's a basic rule of security: never use the same password for two different things. If you wow password is compromised for whatever reason, maybe a determined person could log onto your machine with it ? or make bank transactions ? Sure that would require knowing your identity, or ip, but just posting to a web board or chatting on irc with your wow nick could reveal your ip for instance.

      But i agree with you for things where security is not that important (I use the same password for my slashdot account, and hundreds of other "not so important" accounts).

  8. sourceid.org by Ized · · Score: 5, Informative

    Incase somebody is wondering where the open-source implementation of Ping ID is hiding, it's here:
    Sourceid.org

  9. Funniest part of the article by LeninZhiv · · Score: 4, Funny

    Durand heads to the cocktail bar, reaches behind it and grabs a brand-new $200 Nokia N-Gage. Any self-respecting geek knows it's the coolest combination cellphone, e-mail device and video game around.

    Greatest unintentional humour of the year!

  10. Here's how it actually works by bjpirt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why is there no link to the actual ping identity website in the submission?

  11. A crackers dream by Underholdning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hack once, use everywhere.
    Seriously - all the sites that I would trust a single-sign-on thingy already have that. I use the same password at all those less important places. (I'll probably get bashed to hell for this, but I'm sure most of you do the same)

    --
    Underholdning.info
  12. Re:Generating Passwords Using MD5 by oexeo · · Score: 2, Funny
    Now I have a 33 character, fairly uncrackeable password.

    It was fairly uncrackable password generation method, until you told *everybody!*

  13. The article just lost any credibility it had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Durand heads to the cocktail bar, reaches behind it and grabs a brand-new $200 Nokia N-Gage. Any self-respecting geek knows it's the coolest combination cellphone, e-mail device and video game around.

    I take ithe authour has never spoken to any geek besides his 12 year old nephew who 'knows computers'

  14. SSO in UK by deletedaccount · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a sucessful SSO mechanism used by the education and health sectors in the UK. It has around 3 million users and over 250 target resources. It's called Athens and has been around for years. Eduserv Athens website

    1. Re:SSO in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is another interesting project too :-) : Lasso http://lasso.entrouvert.org/. It is a C implementation of the Liberty Alliance specifications with a lot of bindings (python, java, PHP, C#). I'm one of the developers of Entrouvert http://www.entrouvert.com/, a french free software company. We are trying to offer a free SSO solution. We have also a framework to test it called Souk http://lasso.entrouvert.org/souk. Enjoy with it !

  15. Bad Name by oexeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, when you're dealing with security you need to give your service a good title, would you really trust a company called "Ping" to safe-guard your security? OK, you might, but I think a lot of the general public would not.

  16. Shrug... by Nijika · · Score: 2, Funny
    Are we that shopaholic in this society that we can't type in a username and password to an online store before we buy buy buy?

    Frankly I -want- to think before I click "purchase". I think the real benefactors of this technology aren't the consumers but stores that can rush you in and out the door as fast as possible.

    --
    Luck favors the prepared, darling.
  17. Re:Sorry, some of you /.'s have not got a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds me off:

    My root password is the name of my pet.

    Of course my macaws name is Q!7h}i2/@1u4 and changes every 30 days.

  18. Ho hum.... by TractorBarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Single sign on schemes.

    Single operating system monoculture.

    Single biometric identity card/device.

    etc. etc. et-bloody-c.

    All are worthless. Why ? because a single breach and the entire wall falls down.

    And there never has been. nor will there ever be, an uncrackable code/security system. Human(s) devised it. Other human(s) will crack it. Simple as that.

    I also suspect the amount of criminal reward at stake determines the amount of effort the "bad guys" will expend in cracking something and a single sign on for your bank, auction sites, pay pal, email etc. would prove very tempting indeed.

    Personally I'll stick with my current myriad user name, password combinations thanks.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    1. Re:Ho hum.... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 2, Interesting


      While I agree with you, some of the principles of the Liberty Alliance are that it is a distributed system. I don't know much about it, honestly, but the list of companies on board are competitors and rivals who certainly wouldn't want to share databases, if they could help it. They wouldn't want Microsoft to hold their data, that's for sure.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  19. Another free Liberty implementation by Dr+Schizzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lasso is another free (GPL) implementation of the liberty specs. It is still in heavy development but compatibility against SourceID (PingID solution) has been achieved.

    The great thing in Lasso is the language bindings; PHP, Python, Java, C# (anything .NET actually), integration in existing website is easy (well, it will be much easier when the documentation is completed).

  20. E-commerce Single Sign-On: Paypal by Uukrul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    E-commerce Single Sign-On exists and it's name is PayPal.
    You can shop in thousands of stores at eBay.
    Even if you are a Slashdot Geek you can use your PayPal acount at Source Forge.
    Google search Paypal Donate returns a lot of blogs, open source projects and other webs that belive that Paypal it's the Single Sign-On E-commerce solution.

    85 % growth and 437.60M revenue says something about it.

    --
    My city: Barcelona.
  21. Omelet Du Fromage by Invalid+Character · · Score: 3, Funny
    Omelet Du Fromage.
    "Access Denied."
    Omelet Du Fromage!
    "Access Denied."
    Omelet Du Fromage!!!
    "Access Denied: Self destruct mechanism activated...5"
    GRRRRRRR!!!! OMELET DU FROMAGE!!
    "...4"
    OMELET DU FROMAGE!!
    "...3"
    OMELET DU FROMAGE!! OMELETE DU FROMANGE !!
    "...2"
    OMELET DU FROMAGE!! OMELETE DU FROMANGE !! OMELETE DU FROMANGE !!
    "...1"
    KABOOOOOM!!!

    //Dunno if any of you ever remember/watched dexter's lab?

    --

    --

    Registered .sig quotient : 1337

  22. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our chief SSO is Athens...
    Athens and MS Passport...MS Passport and Athens....
    Our two SSOs are MS Passport and Athens...and Paypal....
    Our *three* SSOs are MS Passport, Athens, and Paypal...
    and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill Gates....
    Our *four* ...no... *Amongst* our SSOs.... Amongst our Single Sign-On solutions...are such elements as...

  23. Availability of the source isn't the issue by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Security of the database is. Availability of the source helps to make sure that that has no flaws, but that's useless if an insider rips off a portion of the db to sell to the highest bidder.

    Even ignoring that, they at least have access to statistical and marketing data on who visits what sites when, potentially even how much they spend; that could be quite valuable to the right people.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  24. Porn tried this... by AndyChrist · · Score: 3, Funny

    And tried it, and tried it. Everyone and their cousin set up some "adult verification" affiliate network, to the point where there's so damned many of them, with such scant content you may as well not have any consolidation of logins.

    How is this any different? Why can any of these parties succeed where pornographers have failed? IS MICROSOFT BETTER THAN SMUT PEDDLERS?

  25. Identity Commons by The+Pim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not to bang on these guys, but for an open, non-commercial, distributed identity system, with working code, see Identity Commons.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
  26. Why do we need a single sign on anyway? by techstar25 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In "the real world" I have several different ID numbers:
    SSN
    Bank account number (more than one)
    Credit card number (more than one)
    Employee ID
    Student ID
    Drivers license number
    Supermarket loyaty discount card number
    Blockbuster/Movie Gallery number
    Library Card number
    Auto/Home/Medical insurance ID
    Voter Registration ID
    I think I'm better off having those as separate numbers, and just keeping the cards around so I don't have to remember them. Why should online be any different? Can you imagine a world where all those numbers are the same, and are maybe our telephone number for instance (making everyting easy to remember). Scary.

  27. SXIP - A better open source solution by pseudorand · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Denver Post seemed to help Ping hype up its open source roots, but I was at the Digital ID World confrence and the solution that impressed me as both a consumer and site developer was SXIP (pronounced skip). This is a PKI-like solution where any web sit you log on to can be a Home site and any web site you want to access without loging on to can be a Member site. Once I've logged on to the homesite of my choice, member sites can easily get any info about me that I've allowed from my home site with homesite lookup and encryption handled by the SXIP root site. Kind of like MS Passport, but I choose exactly who gets what information and I only have to establish an account with my favorite login site (such as, say, slashdot).

  28. Private "keys" as real keys by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IMO, the solution is to make private keys a real physical thing: similar in form factor to a USB key drive. It would store the private key, and have a small CPU that could encrypt/decrypt small messages using that private key. It would not be capable of transmitting the private key itself.

    The masses will never go for private keys that live on hard drives, and a good thing too because they would get compromised all the time! But ordinary people could understand the idea that they need to put a key in their computer to buy stuff online, the way they put a key in their car to turn it on.

  29. Simple unique password generation by nicwolff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a single memorized passphrase and generate a new password for each site by hashing it with the hostname. This bookmarklet asks for the passphrase, grabs the hostname from the current URL, MD5s them, and inserts the first 8 characters of the result into each password field on the current page. It's all done locally in Javascript so nothing secret is passed across the 'net which makes it secure except for shoulder-surfers and keyloggers - good enough for most stuff. And it has the great advantage that there's no locked file of passwords to lose.