I would not like to use any kind of cpu time from any computer to help some guys to make a lot of money registering new patents from our hardware work.
Is there any compromise to not use any discovered information in new patents?
The One Time Pad algorithm have a hight administration cost, mainly because the problems related with the random file generation, deployment and the process of destroying the random data. My company sell a cellular GSM-CSD voice encryption product, and i developed an One Time Pad version for this product. Currently i see problems using only One Time Pad, and i prefer using OTP with symmetric encryption in our product, creating a two protection layers, because the weakness is with the human being. The end user wants to use the best security and wants to have a secure phone like a common cellular phone, and i think this can't be done. The OTP can be used only by people who understand the OTP problems, this technology can't be used by the common people.
Some months ago i suggested to the Google people to have this kind of feature. I asked more, to store the searched page at the moment of the search.
Sometimes we want to find a previous information and we need to do all the search again in order to find it again, or after some months the previous information searched was changed or not available.
The best solution for this problem isin't storing all our searches, but storing the pages we want.
For example, creating a button inside our browser that, after opening the page could allow us to store that information in our repository.
In this way we could create our information repository, like our internal search library with usefull information.
I think google could come with this kind of feature in the future.
In an unknown future, some aliens came to earth, and discovered that: After destroying and devastating the earth, a primitive specimen in the planet, called humans, destroyed all the planet and themselves. This very primitive specimen liked to eat another animal specimens, and didn't have birth control. Their superpopulation increased to a huge ammount and destroyed their basic resources, and they began an internal war to get ownership of their remaining scarse resources. Their population was destroyed by war and some kind of unknown virus that spreaded over the planet, mainly because their population caused a ecological disaster of huge proportions in the planet. Some documents discovered inside the planet said that another unknown alien people prohibited the humans go to space, because these aliens didn't want the humans destroying all their neighborhood. These aliens only prohibited the humans to destroy other planets, but didn't go inside the planet or attacked the Earth planet. The humans didn't have the competence to live in a very rich planet, destroying all the planet resources and destroying themselves.
Do you really think Microsoft have interest in doing a better Internet Explorer? Microsoft need to sell Windows, and why will it improve the browser to compete against.NET? A better browser interface will enable using the browser as a client, and will transfer all the programming work to the server, and why Microsoft will fight in the server arena? Now Microsoft is selling.NET, and.NET is only a remake of the Windows API. The new Internet Explorer version will came because the Firefox success.
I think Microsoft have the competence to implement strong encryption in its products.
But the problem is, have Microsoft interest that a Word document encrypted with a strong password can't be broken? Or implement an encrypted disk that can't be broken if the attacker doesn't have the key?
I think that's the reason, could be the US government behind this decision?
You can't have security if you can't protect your hardware. Using a personal computer to protect your privacy is useless if you can't protect your personal computer against attackers.
You will be protected until an attacker can have access to your hardware, after that you lost your security.
I have seen a lot of desktop voice encryption system being selled (not portable systems), and the user let the hardware in his desk when go home. It is very funny to see this kind of security.
The question remain, this central repository don't help mutch protecting your privacy, i think it makes the things worse, mainly because the users could think that they are safer.
Not talking about hackers attacking one computer is a lot easier than attacking a lot of computers under different protection levels and different owners.
What i say is, having a lot of key servers under different controls and under different countries only makes the security better, but if you want a light security, this can be your choice, but i think we deserve more than that.
If the users have pgp, i think they want privacy, having their secrets and their personal data safer against anyone who want to break their privacy.
Our duty is do the better, ever.
A central repository of public keys can bring problems, for example, if the central repository is located in USA and the FBI want to do a man-in-the-middle attack? How can you be assured that the public key from the guy you want to send a encrypted message is realy the correct public key?
I don't know better solution than having a lot of servers in different countries, under different governments controls and laws, and when the user do a search, he can do the search in a lot of servers.
How about having servers in USA, China, France, Germany, China, Finland, North Corea......, and the user can search the user public key in all these databases?
When storing the public keys, why not the user store his keys in these distributed servers?
Can you really believe that storing your keys under one company control can bring security?
I would like to have in a browser a feature to allow the users to store their important pages outside our desktop, in an private area in a site, where they could access it on the fly. When traveling i would like to have access to my private pages stored in this private area, and i would like to retrieve this pages using an engine like google, only for my important informations stored.
My idea is: To have a button in the browser, where each time i want to store the page remotely, i only would have to click on the button, after that the browser would do all the work to store in a secure way my page remotely.
I sent this idea to the google guys, and don't reveived any answer about that, i think they have a lot o money to be preocupied with this kind of detail.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not like to use any kind of cpu time from any computer to help some guys to make a lot of money registering new patents from our hardware work. Is there any compromise to not use any discovered information in new patents?
The One Time Pad algorithm have a hight administration cost, mainly because the problems related with the random file generation, deployment and the process of destroying the random data.
My company sell a cellular GSM-CSD voice encryption product, and i developed an One Time Pad version for this product.
Currently i see problems using only One Time Pad, and i prefer using OTP with symmetric encryption in our product, creating a two protection layers, because the weakness is with the human being.
The end user wants to use the best security and wants to have a secure phone like a common cellular phone, and i think this can't be done.
The OTP can be used only by people who understand the OTP problems, this technology can't be used by the common people.
Some months ago i suggested to the Google people to have this kind of feature. I asked more, to store the searched page at the moment of the search. Sometimes we want to find a previous information and we need to do all the search again in order to find it again, or after some months the previous information searched was changed or not available. The best solution for this problem isin't storing all our searches, but storing the pages we want. For example, creating a button inside our browser that, after opening the page could allow us to store that information in our repository. In this way we could create our information repository, like our internal search library with usefull information. I think google could come with this kind of feature in the future.
In an unknown future, some aliens came to earth, and discovered that:
After destroying and devastating the earth, a primitive specimen in the planet, called humans, destroyed all the planet and themselves.
This very primitive specimen liked to eat another animal specimens, and didn't have birth control.
Their superpopulation increased to a huge ammount and destroyed their basic resources, and they began an internal war to get ownership of their remaining scarse resources.
Their population was destroyed by war and some kind of unknown virus that spreaded over the planet, mainly because their population caused a ecological disaster of huge proportions in the planet.
Some documents discovered inside the planet said that another unknown alien people prohibited the humans go to space, because these aliens didn't want the humans destroying all their neighborhood.
These aliens only prohibited the humans to destroy other planets, but didn't go inside the planet or attacked the Earth planet.
The humans didn't have the competence to live in a very rich planet, destroying all the planet resources and destroying themselves.
Could the next Internet Explorer stops the Firefox growth?
Do you really think Microsoft have interest in doing a better Internet Explorer? .NET? .NET, and .NET is only a remake of the Windows API.
Microsoft need to sell Windows, and why will it improve the browser to compete against
A better browser interface will enable using the browser as a client, and will transfer all the programming work to the server, and why Microsoft will fight in the server arena?
Now Microsoft is selling
The new Internet Explorer version will came because the Firefox success.
I think Microsoft have the competence to implement strong encryption in its products. But the problem is, have Microsoft interest that a Word document encrypted with a strong password can't be broken? Or implement an encrypted disk that can't be broken if the attacker doesn't have the key? I think that's the reason, could be the US government behind this decision?
You can't have security if you can't protect your hardware. Using a personal computer to protect your privacy is useless if you can't protect your personal computer against attackers. You will be protected until an attacker can have access to your hardware, after that you lost your security. I have seen a lot of desktop voice encryption system being selled (not portable systems), and the user let the hardware in his desk when go home. It is very funny to see this kind of security.
The question remain, this central repository don't help mutch protecting your privacy, i think it makes the things worse, mainly because the users could think that they are safer. Not talking about hackers attacking one computer is a lot easier than attacking a lot of computers under different protection levels and different owners. What i say is, having a lot of key servers under different controls and under different countries only makes the security better, but if you want a light security, this can be your choice, but i think we deserve more than that. If the users have pgp, i think they want privacy, having their secrets and their personal data safer against anyone who want to break their privacy. Our duty is do the better, ever.
A central repository of public keys can bring problems, for example, if the central repository is located in USA and the FBI want to do a man-in-the-middle attack? How can you be assured that the public key from the guy you want to send a encrypted message is realy the correct public key? I don't know better solution than having a lot of servers in different countries, under different governments controls and laws, and when the user do a search, he can do the search in a lot of servers. How about having servers in USA, China, France, Germany, China, Finland, North Corea......, and the user can search the user public key in all these databases? When storing the public keys, why not the user store his keys in these distributed servers? Can you really believe that storing your keys under one company control can bring security?
I would like to have in a browser a feature to allow the users to store their important pages outside our desktop, in an private area in a site, where they could access it on the fly. When traveling i would like to have access to my private pages stored in this private area, and i would like to retrieve this pages using an engine like google, only for my important informations stored. My idea is: To have a button in the browser, where each time i want to store the page remotely, i only would have to click on the button, after that the browser would do all the work to store in a secure way my page remotely. I sent this idea to the google guys, and don't reveived any answer about that, i think they have a lot o money to be preocupied with this kind of detail.