I've been using gpg for some years now. It works.

Now Scentrics come up with,what they say is a more secure new method to
prevent MITM attacks:

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/new-cybersecurity-breakthrough-by-london-tech-firm-scentrics-9772661.html

Patent application here:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140082348

Comments?

John (not convinced)
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.10.2014 01:57, schrieb Doctor John:
> I've been using gpg for some years now. It works.
>
> Now Scentrics come up with,what they say is a more secure new method to
> prevent MITM attacks:
>
>
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/new-cybersecurity-breakthrough-by-london-tech-firm-scentrics-9772661.html

"Only the security services would be able to gain access to the messages 
if they needed to."

Wow. Yeah. Exactly the type of security we need. <Facepalm>

Post a reply to this message

On 04/10/2014 04:32, clipka wrote:
> Am 04.10.2014 01:57, schrieb Doctor John:
>> I've been using gpg for some years now. It works.
>>
>> Now Scentrics come up with,what they say is a more secure new method to
>> prevent MITM attacks:
>>
>>
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/new-cybersecurity-breakthrough-by-london-tech-firm-scentrics-9772661.html
>>
> 
> "Only the security services would be able to gain access to the messages
> if they needed to."
> 
> Wow. Yeah. Exactly the type of security we need. <Facepalm>
> 
Looks like a patent to provision a solution against new Apple strategy
"we do not have the key".

Patent it now, have it mandatory (Hey Apple, you must do it in your
apps) by law, profit.


-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

On 04/10/2014 12:57 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> Comments?

 >> In technical parlance, Scentrics has patented the IP for “a 
standards-based

Wait, what now?

You're patenting a "standards-based" solution?

O RLY?

Post a reply to this message

"Where issues of national security are concerned, the ciphers used are 
all government-approved, which means messages can be accessed if they 
need to be by the security services."

Er, no, that is NOT what that actually means, no.

OK, whoever wrote this piece doesn't seem to understand what they're 
talking about. I'm going to stop reading now.

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.10.2014 10:40, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> On 04/10/2014 04:32, clipka wrote:
>> Am 04.10.2014 01:57, schrieb Doctor John:
>>> I've been using gpg for some years now. It works.
>>>
>>> Now Scentrics come up with,what they say is a more secure new method to
>>> prevent MITM attacks:
>>>
>>>
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/new-cybersecurity-breakthrough-by-london-tech-firm-scentrics-9772661.html
>>>
>>
>> "Only the security services would be able to gain access to the messages
>> if they needed to."
>>
>> Wow. Yeah. Exactly the type of security we need. <Facepalm>
>>
> Looks like a patent to provision a solution against new Apple strategy
> "we do not have the key".
>
> Patent it now, have it mandatory (Hey Apple, you must do it in your
> apps) by law, profit.

Absolutely. Also, put a lid on other poorly controllable stuff like 
PGP/GPG, now that people have grown a heightened awareness of security 
issues but start to forget /why/.

I'm not normally in for conspiracy theories (except for the fun they can 
be at times), but this one smells like bad intentions even to me.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/10/14 12:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> "Where issues of national security are concerned, the ciphers used are
> all government-approved, which means messages can be accessed if they
> need to be by the security services."
> 
> Er, no, that is NOT what that actually means, no.
> 
> OK, whoever wrote this piece doesn't seem to understand what they're
> talking about. I'm going to stop reading now.

Whilst I agree with your assessment of the original article, what I was
actually wanting comments on was the actual application. Clipka and
LeForgeron have hit the nail on the head.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

What kind of newspaper is the standard?
Do they publish 'news-articles' that are paid for by a company?
This piece hardly sounds like journalism to me.

On 4-10-2014 1:57, Doctor John wrote:
> I've been using gpg for some years now. It works.
>
> Now Scentrics come up with,what they say is a more secure new method to
> prevent MITM attacks:
>
>
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/new-cybersecurity-breakthrough-by-london-tech-firm-scentrics-9772661.html
>
> Patent application here:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140082348
>
> Comments?
>
> John (not convinced)
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/10/2014 10:46, andrel wrote:
> What kind of newspaper is the standard?

It depends on which side of the political divide you stand.
For instance. I would not read it with someone else's eyes. :-)

But then, that is only my opinion.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/10/14 10:46, andrel wrote:
> What kind of newspaper is the standard?
> Do they publish 'news-articles' that are paid for by a company?
> This piece hardly sounds like journalism to me.
> 

The 'Stanny' is a freesheet owned by Russian exile Evgeny Lebedev; you
are right to be wary of its reporting.
It likes to portray itself as a campaigning journal (eg cycle safety,
education of the 'under classes' etc etc) but it also seems to have an
ulterior motive. That is why I flagged this article,

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message