Damien Miller wrote:

> It protects against the common threat model of lost/stolen USB keys. Why is
> this snake oil? Your criticism seems akin to calling a physical lock insecure
> because it doesn't protect you from burglars once you have unlocked it.

Many many years ago an office that a startup I was working for was
burglarized by picking the lock on the office door.  They took a number
of computers.  The police recommended that we replace the locks with XYZ
super lock that could not be picked and we did so at significant expense
prior to replacing all of the computers.

Three or four weeks later the office was burglarized again.  They could
not pick the lock so they took a sledgehammer to the wall next to the
door, reached in unlocked the door from the inside and proceeded to go
about their business.

This wasn't a failure of the lock.  The lock did its job.

---

The product you are describing is not snake oil.  You have a valid gripe
that the product is not marketed along with a description of the attack
vectors it protects against and those that it does not.

Jeffrey Altman

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to