Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ciphire, A Transparent, Easy PGP Alternative

Posted by timothy on from the not-just-translucent dept.

mixter writes "Hi. I'd like to point your attention to Ciphire, a fully free and soon-to-be-audited-OpenSource 'Global PKI' project I've been working on for the last three years. As the first three or four thousand geeks started using Ciphire and seem happy, with some tech articles written, I guess the /. community might find this interesting, too. Ciphire hopes to have solved the problems that prevented PGP from a broader deployment, with even higher security standards - as already confirmed by crypto experts Housley & Ferguson. More useful information, e.g. in Wired or in the Nerd^H^H^H^Hexperts FAQ."

12 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. GPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's wrong with the GNU Privacy Guard?

    1. Re:GPG? by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absoulutely nothing. Ciphire might be 'the good guys' but how can you tell? Sure, they are 'going' to release their code, but what's in it right now?

  2. yeah right... by lordkuri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ciphire hopes to have solved the problems that prevented PGP from a broader deployment

    so how exactly are you getting it installed and turned on by default in Outlook and Outlook Express?

    tell me I'm wrong if you want, but that's the only way you'll get Jane and Joe 6pack to use it.

  3. Useless... by gst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what are the advantages? We already have the OpenPGP standard which is implemented by GnuPG and PGP. People who prefer free software are able to use GnuPG which is licensed under the GPL. If someone prefers commercial software he can use PGP - it even comes with a nice GUI if you use it on Windows. So let's look at your product: Non-free, No-source code, not standards complient, binaries only available for a limit number of platforms. So - in your posting you say "OpenSource" - on the webpage you write that you may publish the source in the future, but that it will only be free for non-commercial users. This is NOT OpenSource - see http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for the definition what OpenSource means. Anyway, are there ANY advantages why I should even bother do download your product? Ah - don't mind - I just noticed that there aren't any LinuxPPC binaries, so I can't use it.

    1. Re:Useless... by khrtt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. There is no such thing as a "known secure cryptosystem". "Thought to be secure" is not the same thing, as people have proven many times over.

      2. PGP is not a cryptosystem - it's an application program. "Cryptosystem" means algorithm. It's the same thing as "cipher", essentially.

    2. Re:Useless... by justins · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Oh, so as I understand it RFC2440 was written and THEN PGP v1 was written?

      Thanks for history v2.0

      Huh? You asked a question, I answered it.

      I certainly don't think RFC2440 is any less valid or useful for having been created after a successful implementation was created. That's how standards ought to be created. Standards created before the implementations, or in conjunction, are more likely to suck.

      The comparison with PGP and GPG is illustrative of why this new toy will not be leading to any new standards. No open source, no peer review, no new needs being addressed, no new ground being broken. Who gives a shit?
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:Useless... by mark*workfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PGP is a known secure cryptosystem. Fact of the matter, there is no need for new cryptosystems.

      Well, I guess all that needs to be invented has been invented. We already have an operating system majority (Windows). There's already a major chip vendor (Intel). Antec makes the best cases, so lets just tell all the others to stop.

      Maybe, just maybe, a little mind opening is needed here? Perhaps there's something about (Cipher) that can be used in PGP, or vice versa. Slashdot is full of 'competition is a good thing' type quotes, and I'd say it applies here.

  4. Re:Why not just use enigmail with Thunderbird? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, but I wish enigmail would be included in thunderbird by default. The thunderbird/firefox philosophy is to include only the essentials, right? Anything else should be a plugin/extension. Well, for email, I would think that pgp is an essential, and they need to consider it such.

  5. Not OpenPGP Compliant and no Good reason by Equinox11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this product would of been great if they would of made it OpenPGP compliant, and have a method of signing your keys for a particular email address(verify email address, send a web link, click on link and you're done) If they would of implemented all the automatic sender email matching, automatic decryption, automatic signing, etc. with the current(OpenPGP) standards it would be great.. You would already have a compatible userbase & everything. But as of now I have to support two standards S/MIME and OpenPGP when communicating with people.. Why would I want to recommend to a less technical friend a 3rd one? I'll just set them up with Thunderbird/Mozilla and Enigmail(http://enigmail.mozdev.org) If you havent looked at enigmail check it out.. I'm very impressed with it, and it works fine under windos too.

  6. Re:a better question by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ever heard the expression "secure by default"

    encrypted email stands out from unencrypted email

    Iif the bulk of email was encrypted then it is harder to determined that which is encrypted for a reason and that which isn't. This adds value to the use of encryption.

    I don't really need to ssh between servers on my LAN or run my vnc sessions though an ssh tunnel or use scp when I could use Samba but I do, partly because it means I am using best practices so when I am in a situation where it is desirable I am familiar with the operation and am familar with the tools I will need and not be sat there saying "bugger, I forgot to select 'use secure connection'".

    I don't really need to lock my car every time I walk 10 yards from it to the cashpoint but I do because it is best practice.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  7. Centralized directories are bad ! by louarnkoz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you look at the little pictues "how it works" on the ciphire site, it appears that before sending a mail to Bob, Alice retrieves Bob's certificate from the ciphire central server. Really? And that is private e-mail? They must be kidding!

    What do you think will happen if someone, say in the name of the war on drugs, wants to interfere? Presto, they can convince the central server to yank Bob's key from the directory and replace it by one of their choosing. Some privacy!

  8. I'm also worried about.... by TVC15 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    8. PRIVACY Licensee hereby expressly agrees and acknowledges that Licensor may collect, store, disclose to third parties and otherwise use and process (collectively "Process") Personal Data in connection with the Services, this Agreement and Licensee's use of the Software, and Licensee hereby authorizes Licensor (including its officers, directors, employees and agents and its suppliers and licensors) to Process Personal Data to the extent reasonably required or useful in connection with the provision of the Services and/or the execution of this Agreement, and in compliance with Licensor's current privacy policy as shown on Licensor's website (www.ciphire.com).

    whats that about?