The good old/bad old days in R.A.P.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 5, 9:55*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

You're very trusting. Never put anything into the cloud that you wouldn't want
to see on the front page of the New York Times.

With your thought, please pull the plug to your USENET access and turn
your computer off.

Hackers lurk and whatever is on your computer that is accessing to the
internet that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York
Times could be seen.

DUH, what an IDIOT you are.

The issues of data security in cloud environments are well documented
including the latest campaign by the former head of the NSA regarding
such.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:20*am, Ari wrote:

It's your Usenet, (ab)use it as you wish.

Any other thoughts on improving it always most welcomed :-)

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

Doing something often accomplishes something of less value thaan
nothing. This would be the case here.

I don't suppose you could simply ignore...naw, that that's doing
nothing accomplishing something.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

writes:

Hackers lurk and whatever is on your computer that is accessing to the
internet that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of the New York
Times could be seen.

Not really. I'm not putting my confidential data on someone else's computers
and trusting them to keep it confidential. That would be very naive.

On Apr 5, 1:19*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Not really. I'm not putting my confidential data on someone else's computers
and trusting them to keep it confidential. That would be very naive.

It would be very naive to think your computer accessible to the
internet is keeping your data confidential. You really are
disconnected from reality.

On Apr 5, 1:02*pm, Ari wrote:

I don't suppose you could simply ignore...naw, that that's doing
nothing accomplishing something.

Ignore a tooth ache and let me know if that accomplishes anything.

Same principle.....

Though thus far, sure looks like A and I have accomplished a little as
I haven't seen that much come through Google groups off topic today.

Day is young here though...

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It would be very naive to think your computer accessible to the
internet is keeping your data confidential. You really are
disconnected from reality.

Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
agencies.

These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Apr 5, 1:38*pm, Ari wrote:

Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
agencies.

The operative word is except.....

These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.

Encryption is a good thing as it is an extra layer of protection, but
nothing is unbreakable. After all WEP encryption was supposedly not
decryptable and it was in it's hey day. I wouldn't put my faith into
that security today. If data is that sensitive, then it shouldn't be
put on any network accessible by the internet.

There are your cheap locks, and there are your more expensive locks,
but they all can be picked. You happen to have a more expensive and
several locks, The layers you have bulit in just slows down the
person intent.

I most certainly wouldn't take Mx's information for any worth with
regards to computer security just based on this thread alone.

And of course I figure you already know the weakest link to computer
securty sits in front of the keyboard :-)

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:57:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 5, 1:38*pm, Ari wrote:

Depends on your IT capabilities. With my data local, I can keep any
aggressor from it except the most aggressive of the intelligence
agencies.

The operative word is except.....

These predators will still have to deal with humanly unbreakable
encryption (Truecrypted volumes) once they hit my data.

Encryption is a good thing as it is an extra layer of protection, but
nothing is unbreakable. After all WEP encryption was supposedly not
decryptable and it was in it's hey day. I wouldn't put my faith into
that security today. If data is that sensitive, then it shouldn't be
put on any network accessible by the internet.

I beg your pardon. There are encryption techniques that are useable by
the hardly capable User which are for all /practical/ purposes
unbreakable i.e. the OTP. It would take supercomputers chained
together overseen by an aggressive, highly proficient central
authority hundreds of years to break the algorithm hence/practical/

Now if a moron-user uses his birthday as the password, or Post-It
Note's it to his screen, then all bets are off. As is insecure key
distribution.

point. It's the cpability of the user(s) not the inherent technology
that is at fault.

Btw, WEP was crap from the get-go and anyone who works wireless data
knew it.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Apr 5, 2:21*pm, Ari wrote:

I beg your pardon. There are encryption techniques that are useable by
the hardly capable User which are for all /practical/ purposes
unbreakable i.e. the OTP. It would take supercomputers chained
together overseen by an aggressive, highly proficient central
authority hundreds of years to break the algorithm hence/practical/

Since you don't know the persons ability that may have intent so you
can beg my pardon, I would not be so comfortable with what you say
above.

But again, it's not my computer and not my data so I'm not worried on
what I say or what you feel about what I say. Any sensitive data I
have (which really is not much) is not stored on a computer with
internet access. It is stored on a computer that is a stand alone off
the network, printed using a cabled printer and mailed certified or
equivelent.

I would be quite nervous having you as my security person with what
you say above being so complacent as technology AND methology changes
literally by the minute.

Yes, you are keeping out the casual inquirer / snooper / hacker just
like a lock does for a burglar looking for an easy job. Lock to hard
to pick??? They will move on to another lock easier to pick. You
just happened to have a quality lock so the casual hacker will move
on, but again, what you have is not unbreakable to a hacker intent
including decryption.

You show too much complacency in my opinion with your existing
security as you don't know what your foes are equipped with. Do
you??

Of course hackers are for big game sites, not the individual casual
user such as yourself unless of course you run something not above
board that others such as computer forensic specialists may have
interest (NOT SAYING you do, but a scenario).

On Apr 5, 2:21*pm, Ari wrote:

point. It's the cpability of the user(s) not the inherent technology
that is at fault.

I really think we are on the same page :-)

I call it intent of the user. You called it above the capability of
the user.

No matter what we call it the technology is to protect is but it is
not informidable that it can't be compromised especially when we don't
know what the foe's capability is in the first place.