Re: Lava lamp random number generator made useful?

2008-09-24 Thread Alan
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 00:09 -0700, Jon Callas wrote: A cheap USB camera would make a good source. The cheaper the better, too. Pull a frame off, hash it, and it's got entropy, even against a white background. No lava lamp needed. I sort of agree, but I feel cautious about recommending

Re: once more, with feeling.

2008-09-24 Thread D. K. Smetters
Peter Gutmann wrote: For existing apps with habituated users, so am I. So how about the following strawman: Take an existing browser (say Firefox), brand it as some special- case secure online banking browser, and use the new developments solution above, i.e. it only talks mutual-auth

Re: once more, with feeling.

2008-09-24 Thread Peter Gutmann
Combining several replies into one... Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 08:59:25PM -1000, James A. Donald wrote: The major obstacle is that the government would want a strong binding between sim cards and true names, which is no more practical than a strong

Re: More on Blackberry interception in India

2008-09-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I saw this on another mailing list -- a follow-on to earlier discussions about Blackberry in India. No idea how believable any of it is because there is a great deal of difference between the way Blackberries work in a corporate and non-corporate

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Jim Youll
On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Sandy Harris wrote: From Slashdot: Psychologists gave university students phony popups with various malware warning signs. Many just clicked. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-study-confirms-users-are-idiots.html I think it's got to be said that

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Jim Youll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it's got to be said that it's not apparent that the end-users are the /idiots/ who should be called out for failing this study. We gave them these interfaces, protocols and technologies that allow for things to go so badly wrong. Nothing in the

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Jim Youll
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Jim Youll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it's got to be said that it's not apparent that the end-users are the /idiots/ who should be called out for failing this study. We gave them these interfaces, protocols and technologies that allow

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Jim Youll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was having a discussion over lunch about a week ago with a couple of pretty well known security people (one of them might pipe up on the list). We were considering what would happen in a particular seemingly foolproof system with a trusted channel if

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Bill Frantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry E. Metzger) on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 wrote: I don't want to claim that there is no place for better human factors work in security engineering. There clearly is. However, I will repeat, that is not the only story here, and it is not unreasonable to note that there

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Jim Youll
On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: The whole point of the study (which you feel had an inappropriate tone) and of such gedankenexperiments is to understand the problem space better. Clarification: not the study. I believe the article had an inappropriate tone. Calling

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Bill Frantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry E. Metzger) on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 wrote: there are clearly people we do not allow to cross the street on their own (young children, some mentally ill people, etc), so there is perhaps a class of people who should not be allowed to do unsupervised banking on the

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Jim Youll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: The whole point of the study (which you feel had an inappropriate tone) and of such gedankenexperiments is to understand the problem space better. Clarification: not the study. I believe the article

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Jon Callas
At one time, we believed that with enough crypto, we would be safe, but we were disabused of that notion -- crypto is a great tool but not a panacea. Now the notion seems to be that with enough human factors, we will be safe. It appears this, too, is not a panacea. What you mean, We? I said

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Human factors haven't received nearly enough attention, and as long as human factors failings are dismissed as the fault of idiot users, they never will. Strong agreement. I don't disagree that much more needs to be done on human factors. I just

Re: Fake popup study

2008-09-24 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:43:53 -0400 Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Human factors haven't received nearly enough attention, and as long as human factors failings are dismissed as the fault of idiot users, they never will. Strong