![]() A hacker, or a rogue employee, or a simple breakdown in your site's SSL, or rogue CA, could slip in code into the client-side encryption javascript to send the password somewhere and go unnoticed for minutes, hours, days, months. These things usually break down in other ways. The world can review triplesec and not find any issue for years. Whatever you claim on your intentions and security and as many reviews as you ask for, you are inviting hackers and skepticism. There is a place for a less secure, but more widely used, system like yours (until somebody finds a way to make another robust system actually usable), why not start from the ground up? It's not like PGP is widely used among the people you're targeting anyway. It would just be a shame to break the model. Your scheme doesn't fundamentally break this since the key is encrypted, but subjecting it to a new scheme makes this guarantee arguably a lot weaker.Įven if PGP is not practically a very secure system because of its awful user interface leading to people not treating it carefully, it's a model for a great system. No matter what gets compromised in between you two, so long as your computer is safe (and I'm not saying it always is), your communication is safe. PGP and tools like it have the unique ability to withstand any storm that happens between your computer and the other party's computer. But you're going to dilute PGP in the process (assuming you're successful) by introducing a lot of people who have weaker standards (and people don't follow protocol that tightly as it is. So you want to sacrifice some of what PGP has to offer in order to make it convenient enough for people to actually use. So you're taking a step back for integrity. ![]() That it's now trusted with this new triplesec encryption, well, perhaps the developers are among the best, but it still hasn't stood the test of time. ![]() It's the one really important piece of information that is critical to making PGP worth what it's worth. Maybe file permissions weren't ideal, maybe the random number generator wasn't great at this or that part of the process. For full disclosure, I'm not a PGP veteran by any means, but this strikes me as a fundamentally bad idea because the private key has been secured over many years of fixed mistakes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |