|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AriAri Date: Jun 9, 2008 07:17
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:47:43 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>>> The fact is that there are different levels of security available
>>> and each person will decide how secure he wishes to be, based
>>> upon what he perceives the threat to be.
>
>>Feathers, since the simple implementation of the best security available
>>(Truecrypt, several open source inspected codes, AxCrypt, GnuPGP, many
>>others reviewed by cryptologists instead of bears and birds), why would
>>you consider a company like these charlatans?
>
> I wouldn't. If I wanted security, I'd use eg: PGP or whatever.
>
> But that wasn't my point was it.
The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
more secure or really really secure. I'm saying why put in a wooden door
to your safe when you can have a 12" concrete/steel reinforced one for
no more hassle or penalty.
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
|
| | 87 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 9, 2008 08:59
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:47:43 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>
>>>> The fact is that there are different levels of security available
>>>> and each person will decide how secure he wishes to be, based
>>>> upon what he perceives the threat to be.
>>
>>>Feathers, since the simple implementation of the best security available
>>>(Truecrypt, several open source inspected codes, AxCrypt, GnuPGP, many
>>>others reviewed by cryptologists instead of bears and birds), why would
>>>you consider a company like these charlatans?
>>
>> I wouldn't. If I wanted security, I'd use eg: PGP or whatever.
>>
>> But that wasn't my point was it.
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
|
| | 82 Comments |
|
|
Author: AriAri Date: Jun 9, 2008 10:08
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:59:19 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>>The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
>>more secure or really really secure. I'm saying why put in a wooden door
>>to your safe when you can have a 12" concrete/steel reinforced one for
>>no more hassle or penalty.
>
> That is true providing your "12" concrete/steel reinforced" door
> is as easy to install and cheap as the wooden door. I'd bet that
> in most cases it isn't. So, we get back to horses for courses.
Bzzt. Schneier has a binaries version of Two and Blowfish that is just
as easy as Flexcrap. Axcrypt has been well received, there are dozens of
others, ease of use does not necessarily equate with shitware, Feathers.
See what Flexcrap has done to you? Addled.
I do admire that you can fly with your hands.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AnonymousAnonymous Date: Jun 9, 2008 11:08
hummingbird wrote:
>>The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
>>more secure or really really secure. I'm saying why put in a wooden door
>>to your safe when you can have a 12" concrete/steel reinforced one for
>>no more hassle or penalty.
>
> That is true providing your "12" concrete/steel reinforced" door
> is as easy to install and cheap as the wooden door. I'd bet that
> in most cases it isn't. So, we get back to horses for courses.
In this case, it absolutely is. In fact this particular concrete-steel
door is a *lot* cheaper for the same functionality, Installs exactly
the same way, swings easier on its hinges, works just like every other
door of its type so authorized strangers won't have any trouble using
it, and has design specs freely available so you can be sure the thing
is filled with concrete and not Styrofoam, or build your own if you
want. :)
|
| Show full article (1.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 9, 2008 11:54
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:59:19 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>
>>>The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
>>>more secure or really really secure. I'm saying why put in a wooden door
>>>to your safe when you can have a 12" concrete/steel reinforced one for
>>>no more hassle or penalty.
>>
>> That is true providing your "12" concrete/steel reinforced" door
>> is as easy to install and cheap as the wooden door. I'd bet that
>> in most cases it isn't. So, we get back to horses for courses.
>Bzzt. Schneier has a binaries version of Two and Blowfish that is just
>as easy as Flexcrap. Axcrypt has been well received, there are dozens of
>others, ease of use does not necessarily equate with shitware, Feathers.
Good. I didn't know that. Links? Is it freeware?
Folks here don't appreciate ads for payware or shareware.
>See what Flexcrap has done to you? Addled.
|
| Show full article (1.44Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 9, 2008 12:00
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:08:03 +0200 (CEST) 'Anonymous'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>>The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
>>>more secure or really really secure. I'm saying why put in a wooden door
>>>to your safe when you can have a 12" concrete/steel reinforced one for
>>>no more hassle or penalty.
>>
>> That is true providing your "12" concrete/steel reinforced" door
>> is as easy to install and cheap as the wooden door. I'd bet that
>> in most cases it isn't. So, we get back to horses for courses.
>In this case, it absolutely is. In fact this particular concrete-steel
>door is a *lot* cheaper for the same functionality, Installs exactly
>the same way, swings easier on its hinges, works just like every other
>door of its type so authorized strangers won't have any trouble using
>it, and has design specs freely available so you can be sure the thing
>is filled with concrete and not Styrofoam, or build your own if you
>want. :)
|
| Show full article (2.37Kb) |
| 80 Comments |
|
|
Author: Anonymous SenderAnonymous Sender Date: Jun 9, 2008 13:32
hummingbird wrote:
> Plse understand that I'm not sticking up for flexicrap.
> All I've said is that it will be adequate for *some* people.
>
> I understand the principles of security well,
Those two statements are contradictions.
Nobody who has any understanding of security would ever
recommend encryption of completely unknown quality for
anything just because they assume it might "look real
nice" to some users.
And that's exactly what you're saying.
Simple truth of the matter is you don't know if it's
adequate, a trojan, spyware, crapware, or the best damn
encryption software in the world. You're basing your
first statement on blind assumption and the subjective
opinion that all the buttons and icons are in the right
places. And that, my friend, makes your second statement
categorically false.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 9, 2008 15:58
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC) 'Anonymous Sender'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> Plse understand that I'm not sticking up for flexicrap.
>> All I've said is that it will be adequate for *some* people.
>>
>> I understand the principles of security well,
>
>Those two statements are contradictions.
I was applying the concept of security wider than just computing.
I have always believed that security needs to be effective against
the perceived threats and with due regard for whatever is being
secured. So, if you regularly stored sacks of diamonds in your
home, you'd need to have better security than if you only stored
sacks of pinto beans. And IMV the security needs to prevent
access in the first place (ie physical security), not simply sound
alarms once a burglar has got in.
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anonymous SenderAnonymous Sender Date: Jun 10, 2008 08:56
hummingbird wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:08:03 +0200 (CEST) 'Anonymous'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
> >>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>>>The only point I saw was that you claimed people wanted to be secure,
...
|
| Show full article (2.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Jun 10, 2008 13:03
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:56:38 +0000 (UTC) 'Anonymous Sender'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:08:03 +0200 (CEST) 'Anonymous'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>> >>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The only point I saw was that you claimed...
|
| Show full article (3.93Kb) |
| 76 Comments |
|
|
|
|
