Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Security

Yahoo Offering Encrypted Email 164

Posted by CmdrTaco from the screwing-with-carniore dept.
James Salsman writes "Now that Yahoo delivers encrypted email, I would sure like to know what the Slashdot fray thinks of that, especially in light of Carnivore's vulnerability to some forms of encryption (but not this one?)." michael adds: You might also want to check out Cyber-Rights.net, which is a UK civil liberties group offering encrypted email through a deal with Hushmail.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo Offering Encrypted Email More

Yahoo Offering Encrypted Email

Comments Filter:

  • You can get cool usernames too... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...like 'root' and 'postmaster' :) I think they need to sort some issues out...
  • Kevin Mitnck made a lot of noise, too. It didn't get him out of jail much faster. Most people have very near zero sympathy for anyone accused of a computer crime. Uninterrupted access to eBay and yahoo is more important than constitutional principles these days.
  • How about your printer?
    That's right, your printer. My HP laserjet has a 68030 progessor and a meg of RAM. That's as much processing power and memory as a Mac LC. A simple firmware tweak and a wireless modem in the slot used for the JetDirect network card, and your printer could broadcast encrypted copies of everything you print. If you add a BIOS patch, the computer could slowly read all the data from the hard drive, send it to the printer, and have the printer encrypt and transmit it.

    I think at this point computer security becomes a moot point, if the big bad G-men want to know the password to your pr0n collection so badly that they would bug your printer, BIOS, HDD controller, or the like, they would probably just arrest you, and "persuade" you to tell them what they want to know. Cat burglars and BIOS hackers are far more expensive than two goons and a baseball bat.
  • "Well I'm sorry, Sir, but I seem to have forgotten my decryption pass phrase"

    "That's too bad. Here, see if this contempt charge and year in jail helps jog your memory. If you remember the passphrase, we might let you out."
  • ...the average user (including yourself and I) have absolutely no need...

    How do you know what needs I or anyone else for that matter may have? Sure I don't want people poring over my letters to my wife, neither do I want my wife accidentally finding out what I'm getting her for Christmas. Or someone sniffing my new Secret Recipe for Coka-Kola that I whipped up in my kitchen and am sending a friend to try out. Or any of dozens of other things that yes I damn well have a right to protect.

    What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window

    Um. closing the curtains, perhaps. Also a little thing called the law[0].

    You are saying on the one hand that the little guy has no need for privacy and therefore deserves none. On the other you say that since we can't protect our privacy completely anyway, why bother trying? What's your argument here? If you don't want to use encryption, or protect your privacy, fine. But don't seek to prevent others from doing so.

    No, there is no such thing as perfect privacy. However we should do all we can to protect what little we have, because once it's gone it'll be much harder to get back.

    [0] - standard disclaimers apply.

  • ... is http://www.myrealbox.com.

    It offers:
    Secure IMAP
    Secure SMTP
    Secure Web Based
    POP3
    Forwarding
    POP3 Collection
    Auto Replying
    No Ads--at all (it's run by Novell, they make their money showing off what their product can do, I think)

    Pretty much everything. I've been using it's IMAP for several months now, and so far it's been teriffic.
  • And if you don't want to pay for a cert, Thawte offers their personal certs [thawte.com] for free, complete with a web-of-trust program.
  • It would not have mattered if the Microsoft emails were encrypted. If the government can demand copies of the email, they can just as easily require that the key to decrypt those messages be given to them.

    You are confusing the issue here. Covert interception of messages vs. Court-ordered handing-over of emails. Encryption has nothing to do with the second case.

    domc
  • So?

    I quote: Yahoo's free encryption option handles outgoing email messages in a multi-step procedure that the portal warns is not foolproof.

    "Not foolproof" is actually an euphemism for "absolutely useless".

    Apparently you and most people fail to see that only HALF of the transmission is encrypted. That's equivalent to nothing in practical terms.

    The fact you must trust the recipient doesn't even begin to be an argument against encryption.

    Flavio

  • Also the hardware cannot recognize writing compiler for every possible platform. That requires significantly more AI in silicon than currently available hardware has.

    That doesn't matter much, since 95% of the world uses one basic hardware platform, and the other 5% using 20 others... If you compromise the 95%, you've done an excellent job.
  • No one can ever guarentee "all" of something. It's an unreasonable expectation and just impossible. There's always a straggler here or there, etc... Convincing intel and via they should include some microcode in their chipsets is a very great place to start.

  • I agree. Alas (maybe I'm reading it wrong) it looks like this isn't encrypted email traffic; it looks like it's just encrypted storage at the mailbox. That's better than nothing, I guess, but still doesn't help much.


    ---
  • "So they see my pictures of my dog, a letter to a girlfriend and some poetry I've written. Big freakin' deal"

    And just for fun, they insert a back door which gives them remote access (BackOrifice, etc).

    And then, since this is some "script kiddie" (your words), they get boored some day and decide to delete the hard drive.

    Now do you still say "Big freakin' deal."? Because I don't. And I've seen it happen, so this is NOT a hypethetical example.

    EVERYONE needs security.

    If you said that we need an APPROPRIATE balance between security and other issues, then I would agree. And the balance is different for the president and for Joe User.

    But in MY OPINION, Joe User should have encrypted email. It's easy (to implement), automatic (with the right tools), doesn't impose much CPU load (emails aren't very long and CPUs are fast these days), and requires no special knowledge on the part of Joe User. So there's hardly any downside. The ONLY reason it's not there is the lack of widely-distributed clients.

    -- Michael Chermside
  • I missed the fact that the channel is secured.

    Though, it is still possible to intercept through the connection from user to Yahoo! (unless SSL is used, of course)

    The government still can tap into it, by tapping into the Yahoo server / SecureDelivery.com server.

    It's still more problematic then it seems: people thought that it's safe when indeed there's a big loophole
  • Did anyone here have a four-digit ID? Or maybe even three- or two-digit? I had one under 5000, which I was very proud of when there were millions of users. It's sad, I know.
    --
    "But I'm still like a little kid, see?
    I just don't know when to quit."
    - Rei
  • As currently slated by yahoo.com and securedelivery.com, its more media hype than actual security. After reading the article, the transport of the original email from the sender to Yahoo! is plaintext over TCP/IP, No SSL. And as we all know, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
  • Well ... It would probably be expensive, but it would give them a slight edge over the competition, or even just let them catch up with the competition ... Every Webmail service I use here has SSL encryption on both HTTP and POP ... Sure, they spent some money for some SSL equipment, but they also get the "good" press ...

    If Yahoo was to offer SSL and _decent_ encryption, I think the slashdot crowd wouldn't bash it as much as it apparently does here ...

    Horribly expensive is relative. Once it is avaiable everywhere else, they will have to switch, too. Not to do so would be more expensive in the long run since they'd loose customers ...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • <grumble> Should'a hit preview <\grumble>
  • 3. What's exactly "encryption" here?
    XORring the message with the text 'Yahoo!' ;)

    YDD

  • <yawn>This is nothing new.

    TeamOn.com [teamon.com] has had an encrypted secure mail function for years now.

    ----
    Wind and temp at my house [halcyon.com]

  • ZixIt: Zero Security Encryption (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Go to the Zix website, read up on their junk, and if you know anything about crypto, you will know that their system was specifically designed to given them total control of "your" keys, and completely enable man in the middle attacks, by the Zix people or any other interested party. They also log every instance of encryption, and who your encrypted data is heraded to...

    It's snake oil, pure & simple. The more popular this becomes, the worse for the future of digital communications.

  • Sure, but why bother with the half-assed attempt? This sounds very much like a salesdroid idea. "Tell them that using encrypted mail will make them secure!"

    Sorry, no dice. There is /no/ one sure way to be secure, but there are ways to be /more/ secure. Security is a process and all that.

    In a way they are lying to customers as well. What happens when random-megacorp decides to do all their email through yahoo now, sends all sorts of stuff that should be private, only it's sniffed or stolen from yahoo. Or something like that.

    The end result is they say that it's encrypted but in fact it's unencrypted on the server, and in the transaction on upload.
  • I'd like to use encryption all the time w/ my email from the client, just as a matter of principle, but the sad fact is that 99% of the people I communicate with don't have encryption on their side, and they don't see any good reason to install it: hence the ease of communication that is the basis of email is lost. What I'd like to see is all email clients that folks use - let's say the major ones in commercial settings - have encryption built in so that I can opt to encrypt everything I send out, and if the recipient isn't running encryption "on top" as it were, his or her client would accept my email, tell the recipient that this is an encrypted email form me, their great a good friend, and offer to unencrypt it for their reading pleasure. Am I being totally fscked up thinking this way or what? In other words, what would be the major problems having this as an embedded feature in all email clients? The feds, agreeing on a standard, actual coding, or something else?
  • If you really think someone is intercepting your mail, they are going to do it between you and yahoo.

    But what if I think that someone is intercepting my friend's mail?
    __
  • Sure, but why bother with the half-assed attempt? This sounds very much like a salesdroid idea.

    You've answered your own question. It's a sales ploy, and it's relying on the fact that by definition, half the population is of below-average intelligence.

    -
  • It would probably be expensive, but it would give them a slight edge over the competition, or even just let them catch up with the competition ...

    Yahoo makes more money than all the webmail services that allow SSL combined. If they "caught up", they'd be making far less profit. Their shareholders would probably sue them.

    They have 125 million registered users. How many do you honestly think they'd gain by offering SSL? How many do places like MailandNews.com [mailandnews.com] have combined? A few thousand? A million?

    -
  • Right. It's strange that they're not providing a SSL secured page in which to COMPOSE your message.
  • This service is SSL-based. So, the transmission is secure, but it's plaintext on their servers. not only are all the trails there, your unencrypted email is sitting on their servers, waiting to be read.

    There's a reason Zixmail's paying yahoo to offer this service, not vice-versa.
  • Its a shame you went though all that effort and then someone just read your monitor becuase you forgot to shield against TEMPEST technologies...
  • This gives you hardly any security at all. Your message is NOT encrypting by anything but 'their' key. And I doubt that the emails are encrypted at all on their servers. Besides, yahoo could encrypt them with their public key, if they wanted to.
    This scheme is very good for protecting your mails from coworkers scanning tools - as would POP over SSL. On the other hand, almost every mail sent to that server is bound to be 'interesting'. If you don't encrypt by default, to the recipient, you'll only be sending sensitive information that way.

    A good first step towards protecting emails around the world would be SMTP delivery through SSL (or SSH or IPSec or...), that way intermediate hosts cannot sniff effectively anymore. The next good thing would be SSL connections to POP/IMAP services.

    That would definitely annoy most government listening services. The only Bad-Thing about SSL is the server certificates, which everybody whould then need to have. If we drop server authentication, we run the risk of man-in-middle attacks by governments. Which would be very costly indeed, because of the CPUs needed to do that.

    Just my 0.02 EUR

  • I agree. Why not simply have the form send an https e-mail directly to the third party e-mailer? (I'm sure clever people here can think of a better solution) That would be offering the best possible protection on the internet.

    -Ben

  • If the encryption isn't interoperable with
    other email encryption standards, it's not
    going to do a lot of good, and it's going
    to be annying to receive messages from these
    people. I think Yahoo would love to send out
    messages all over the place saying "you have an
    encrypted email from a Yahoo! user. Please visit
    Yahoo to retrieve it, and look at a bunch of ads while you're there".. That's what this boils down to for me..
  • enter lokmail [lokmail.net]!

  • They aren't.
    They're using Zyx, or whatever it's spelled as.
    It's a server-side encryption.
    Yahoo holds the keys..
  • While not an email client, I have often thought that icq with encryption would be a good idea, and Licq goes an implements (what looks like) point to point ssl encrypted icq messages. Very nice. I can actually think of uses for this. Too bad I've become a gnomeicu junky ;)

  • So a script kiddie... breaks into my system with a well-documented hole that I haven't plugged up yet.... Big freakin' deal.

    Well, yeah, it would be a big deal if they erased your hard drive, as Mike pointed out. But if you take into account how many people "the average user" accounts for, then what happens when they are all used as part of a DDOS? It's a big deal, especially if you are on the recieving end.

  • A more general solution is to encrypt both the header and body. The to: field would have to have salt added so that you could have several messages addressed to you without this being apparent.

    The real difficulty is retrieving only your messages securely. The brute force method of retrieving all headers pending on the server and asking for the bodies of those you understand seems... wrong.

    Ah: if the salt were generated in some known way (minutes past 1970, or something) I could send the mail server a set of ids (from when I last read mail or the oldest mail still on the server, whichever is later) that could feasably be me. The server then send me all headers from all matches, and I ask for all that really are me.

    Because of salting, it is possible that some I will be sent headers that are not adressed to me; these I'll be unable to decrypt, thus won't ask for the message body.

    As far as I can tell, this leaks no information.
    Can anyone tell me if mixmaster does something similar?
  • This solution only encrypts the mail while it is on the wire - the cleartext is stored on Yahoo's servers and is capturable on either client.

    Sure, encrypting your transmission en-route is better than sending it in the clear, but given how frequently Yahoo is taken down by skr1pt k1dd13s, I would say the server is the greater vulnerability.

    If you are sincerely interested in encryption, only a client-side solution provides adequate protection.

    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • Yahoo's now giving their users an envelope.

    What you're doing with Yahoo here is more closely similar to tossing your letter in your outbox. Then it sits there in plain sight for a little while before your secretary picks it up and puts it in an envalope for you and then mails it. Certianly more secure than sending a postcard (at least it's in an envalope on the receiving end), but not as secure as sealing an envalope yourself. One of the big uses that I've found for crypto e-mail is sending a heads-up the the receiver that the content of the message may not be suitable for reading when a roommate is looking over your shoulder. This yahoo scheme is certianly going to be effective for that purpose.
    _____________

  • Wait a minute, folks, it's written right there in the Yahoo blurb:
    1. Email user writes email.
    2. Email user sends email to Yahoo *over an insecure channel*
    3. Yahoo sends email to ... blah, blah, blah.
    In short: if I can get your (unencrypted) email before it gets to Yahoo, I can know whatever it was that required encryption in the first place.
    P. Zimmermann had a name for that kind of solution. He called it 'snake oil'. 'Nuff said.
  • Unfortunately, that is similar to the view taken by government, "What if terrorists use encryption..." yada yada.

    The question then becomes: *who* do you want to have more power over you - gov't or coporations?
  • If you want encrypted, secure email, why on Earth would you use Hotmail?

    That's like setting out to get a Formula 1 caar and coming home with a Le Car...
  • Sure, but mails traceable after a specific court order is way better than run-time tracable mail.

    "They" have always been able to listen in on us once they have their eyes on us. Unencrypted mail suddenly gave "them" the power to listen in on *everything* a priori suspicious or not.

  • Hushmail, at www.hushmail.com, [hushmail.com] has 128 bit SSL uploads and downloads of both text and MIME parts. The Hushmail computers are located in Canada and the company is based in Trinidad, I believe, so they would be far less susceptible to an FBI search than Yahoo would. When you send e-mail to another Hushmail account, it is kept in encrypted form. It's really pretty slick. If you want to try it out, send me e-mail at beulah@hushmail.com, preferably from another hushmail account.
  • Let me see...Carnivore sits at your ISP and intercepts everything you send; someone else could packet sniff your connection, your sysadmin might have proxies in place...
    Now, Yahoo recieves your email in cleartext, from you, through your ISP and only then encrypts it, to be sent on, and is collected by the recipient via SSL.
    Why not go the whole hog and provide SSL from you to the Yahoo servers?
    Call me crazy, but I see little benefit to these partially secured systems.
    A system is only as secure as it's weakest link - and in this case there is a point where cleartext messages are transmitted by the system.
    Is this truely the great innovation it's supposed to be? Yes, it will open up crypographic email to many people, but these are probably the same people that do not appreiciate the issues involved, and might blindly trust a system with what appear to be obvious shortfalls.

  • I personally am a fanboy of this service, which can be found at http://www.hushmail.com [hushmail.com], so you may want to take my comments with a grain of salt. However, I must say that I have found Hushmail to be a superior email service.

    1. The service is free, unlike some solutions that offer encryted mail.

    2. You can choose a user name, and supply a very small amount of personal information (mainly first and last name), OR you can create an anon######@hushmail.com account and supply NO personal information.

    3. You check your mail through a java applet that encrypts traffic to and from their servers.

    4. You can select a passphrase of arbitrary length. I think mine is 40 or 50 characters.

    5. Your inbox on their servers is encrypted. If your inbox is ever subject to subpoena, Hushmail will happily supply the legal authorities with unintelligible, heavily encrypted junk. Drawback: if you forget your passphrase, there is no way to recover your account.

    6. If you send an email to another Hushmail user, your message is never converted into plain text; it goes encrypted straight from your Java applet to their inbox.

    The one issue I feel Hushmail still needs to address is PGP integration. If you receive a PGP encrypted message in your Hushmail, you have to copy the text and paste it into Notepad to decrypt it, and if you send a message to a user that is not on Hushmail, there is no choice but to send it in plaintext. However, this issue has been acknowledged, and will be addressed in a future service upgrade.

    All around I'm happy with Hushmail, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to the Slashdot community.

    -inq

  • It's also one of the few dot-coms currently making a profit.
  • from the securedelivery website: The encryption of these messages is normally done with public-key encryption.
    What is a normal condition?
    What is the encryption algorithm?
    Does anyone else see a problem here? One of the more widely used email services using shoddy encryption?
  • I submit that its actually easier to listen in on one's keystrokes and determine what you are typing from the vibrations your keys make than it is to break any modern form of encryption. Just another thing for the truly paranoid to think about.

    For more on this, see The Code Book, by Simon Singh.

    I watch the sea.
    I saw it on TV.

  • Interesting point about the balance issue. I would agree with that.
  • Except for the fact that the average user (including yourself and I) have absolutely no need for high-encryption in everyday email transfers. Credit card number transactions on web sites, yes. Letters to our girlfriends telling them we love them, no.

    I've always argued that the general geek/Open Source community it very paranoid when it comes to things like encryption. If we're talking national security, yes, I think the president should have strong encryption. The average user has no need, and the only thing that encryption does to that user is make him look suspicious.

    And if you're going to argue that "everyone has a right to privacy"... give me a break. So I, Joe User, encrypt my email on my home machine. What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window and looking at the screen. Or monitoring the disk transactions while they are plaintext. Or, for the paranoid, monitoring my keystrokes. There is no such thing as perfect privacy people... get over it. If I truly wanted to get a person's writing, I can.

  • Why in God's name would you worry about someone packet sniffing your address, first of all?

    Secondly, what would they care if you store a firearm in a particular place (I can just as easily overhear you by listening over your shoulder in a supermarket)?

    Thirdly, if you were concerned (which would be ludicrous) why would you send the information to a friend over email anyway? Why not talk to him directly?

  • That's the other thing: system security. What Joe User needs an absolutely secure system?

    So a script kiddie (or even an elite government hacker) breaks into my system with a well-documented hole that I haven't plugged up yet. So they see my pictures of my dog, a letter to a girlfriend and some poetry I've written. Big freakin' deal.

    Again, the only people who need absolute security are those who have something to hide. Namely drug cartels, terroist groups and kiddie porners.

  • The smoking gun that caught Microsoft was the e-mails that they sent.

    I fear that corporatism will continue to grow more and more powerful if they are able hide their stealing with encryption that the government can't crack. It will make it even more possible to take advantage of the people.

    I worry about corporatism also, but the current system would have been more than adequate for your Microsoft/DOJ example. The DOJ used open legal proceedings to obtain access to Microsoft's email. They didn't snoop through their mail before deciding to bring charges against them - they didn't need to.

    If the email had been encrypted, the court could have required them to provide the key then, with legal penalties for refusing to comply.

    I have no problem with the authorities demanding access to encrypted materials if they do it in a legal, open, above-board manner. I have a major problem when they want to be able to read anything at a whim, just in case they find something they might want to prosecute for.

    Innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc. etc.

    Besides, do you think the government will use any law enforcement tool to attack corporatism, given how much corporations pay to put their people in charge of the government? You're dreaming if you think the government works for us against big biz.

  • I use Yahoo! as my main mail client right now since I've had some instability in all my other addresses. I like it, for the most part. I hope it's going to be a -free- service. And I hope they have SSL support for the browser-to-server transactions.

    Please note that Yahoo! isn't really an "evil corporation" - corporation, yes - but what do they do? Provide free service and information, lead the way (or at least make considerable progress) in the field of network-portal services and office apps, and offer the whole thing for free to anybody? Provide a wide variety of free community-building communication services?

    Sorry. Hadda get my rant on. ;)
    1. I sure as heck wouldn't send anything that needed to be encrypted via a webmailer in the first place.

    2. Yeah, I'm gonna trust third party, non-opensource encryption schema on a site that I have no access to, and no control over my keys.

    3. If I desire the privacy of encrypted mail, I'll use PGP or GnuPGP where I have control over the encryption/decryption process.
    Sheesh.
  • Unencrypted between end-user and Yahoo! ? So a sniffer either at the local network (the norm, I'd think, at many institutions) or a crack at Yahoo! would still work?

    Don't forget another really common problem. Trojans. Since the majority of people using Yahoo! email would be using windows 95/98/ME they would be succeptible to those stupid email attachments and such. I would imagine that the majority of these people are not even doing something as simple as running ZoneAlarm [zonelabs.com] and do not have an Antivirus program [avp.com] so their machines are wide open. I would think that the client is the least secure part of the puzzle. Hushmail definitely works much better, providing the people sending and receiving the messages have not had their computers compromised.

    Also, to answer your questions, they technically do use SSL according to the article:

    Yahoo's new system works like this: Once a message is composed, it travels, unencrypted, to Yahoo, which sends it through a secure connection to SecureDelivery.com. There, the message and any attachments are scrambled. SecureDelivery then sends the recipient the address to a Web page, secured by Secure Sockets Layer ( SSL) and hosted by SecureDelivery.com, where the message can be picked up and descrambled for up to seven days.

    So they use SSL in a somewhat half-assed way.

  • Under the terms of the deal, Zixit will pay Yahoo at least $5.7 million during the next two years. On top of that, Zixit will give Yahoo a cut of revenues "associated with Yahoo users."

    I find it kind of strange that Yahoo! is the one who is getting paid in this deal. It seems to me that Yahoo! should be paying Zixit to use their service. Can anyone explain why? Just exposure?


    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
  • The more encrypted traffic the better.
    if theres only a few encrypted mails theres more chance they will look suspicious.
  • Freedom of speech is NOT unlimited. Speech that is harmful to others is not protected (Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, yadda yadda).

    Are you trying to say that Microsoft's emails talking about their tactics is harmful, and therefore not protected speech?!

    Some of the most harmful speech we have right now are the lies that Microsoft has told consumers.

    Uhhh, please. It's not harmful in the same way as someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre. (Possibly the stupidest example of unprotected speech.)

    How do you think they became a monopoly?

    I can assure you, not by merely TALKING about it via email!

    The government has a responsibility to protect regular citizens from the lies of corporatism.

    Where is that in the Constitution?

    You voted for Nader, didn't you?

    -thomas

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • It is sent via SSL to securedelivery.com.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • Encryption should be regulated by the government. The smoking gun that caught Microsoft was the e-mails that they sent. Imagine if they had been all encrypted. Microsoft would be even more powerful right now.

    It's just like saying you believe in free speech, but tell those goddamn KKK people to shut up!

    Freedom goes both ways. Love it or leave it.

    -thomas

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • I have absolutely no idea why encrypted email has not taken off more than it has (ease of use maybe). Anyway, I have been using GnuPG [gnupg.org] for quite awhile with much success on my Linux boxes. A few of my Windows inclined counterparts use Verisign [verisign.com] certificates however, and I must admit, that it's very easy to use, and plugs right into Netscape Communicator [netscape.com] on Linux with no problems. They even offer a free 60 day trial certificate. You can also do quick and painless certificate lookups [verisign.com] on their site.

    Penguin better have my money! The Linux Pimp [thelinuxpimp.com]

  • For secure mail, you need a client that contains encryption and that you can trust: you need to be able to trust its encryption, and you need to know that it is free of back doors. The content needs to travel encrypted from your mail client to the recipient's mail client.

    A Java applet with well-known source code might begin to give you that kind of trust (if you trust your Java application). A C or Perl program, small enough to be reviewed, might as well.

    A web browser with SSL just doesn't do the right thing since the mail arrives in cleartext on the web server, and a closed source client like Outlook simply can't be trusted to be free of backdoors or other problems at all.

  • If you're interested in the what and not the how, there is a more concise description of that hack here [science.uva.nl] in the jargon file. Very clever.

    -

  • Hi,

    My own ISP, XS4ALL in The Netherlands, has some nice security-services:
    - Maximum privacy guaranties. In the pas even some courtorders didn't make xs4all give away userdetails.
    - They've never removed content that would imply a violation to the freedom of speech
    - Encrypted webmail.
    - Free registered versions of Mcafee Antivirus and PGP-suites. (all platforms)
    - static IP, subdomain and bSMTP for a small fee

    All for just about 12,- a month. check www.xs4all.nl

    (I don't own stock of these guys, nobody does. This ISP doesn't do it just for the cash)

    Paul K

  • Repeat after me (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:39AM (#594067)
    Carnivore doesn't care what's in your message, Carnivore cares about where your message gets sent.

    Carnivore is a traffic analysis program, designed to figure out who is talking to whom, be that http, smtp, etc.

    The Feds want to know who is talking to _INSERT SUSPECT HERE_, and to whom _INSERT SUSPECT HERE_ is talking. Encrypting doesn't thwart that analysis.

  • Yahoo! Right? (Score:3)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:26AM (#594068) Homepage Journal

    That's an oxymoron. They'll encrypt it until they're asked by the LEA to decrypt them. Do you really think they won't comply with Carnivore?

  • Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message? It seems silly not to...

    To do so on their scale would be horribly expensive.

    Handling a non-SSL web transaction doesn't require a fraction of the CPU power that an SSL transaction requires.

    Even with dedicated-SSL hardware, they'd have to increase their number of servers.

    -

  • Inherent system flaws (Score:3)

    by Flavio ( 12072 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:40AM (#594070)
    There are several blatant flaws here that make the system practically useless if you want security:

    1. Your data travels unencrypted to Yahoo, including your passphrase.
    2. There's no guarantee they'll decrypt it if asked, but I'm assuming YES, they will.
    3. What's exactly "encryption" here?

    So there.

    Flavio

  • Re:Bad encryption is just fine... for the average (Score:3)

    by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @09:16AM (#594071) Homepage

    Except for the fact that the average user... have absolutely no need for high-encryption in everyday email transfers.

    The average user has no need, and the only thing that encryption does to that user is make him look suspicious.

    That's one of the main reasons for widespread, everyday email encryption. So that when you do need to encrypt something, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

    I've always argued that the general geek/Open Source community it very paranoid when it comes to things like encryption.

    Paranoia is necessary if you are to consider anything secure. Otherwise, it's just 'obscure something and keep your fingers crossed'.

    So I, Joe User, encrypt my email on my home machine. What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window and looking at the screen...

    Can they do that for every person in the country at the same time?

  • an interesting idea, but will it be used? (Score:3)

    by cetan ( 61150 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:37AM (#594072) Journal
    How it works:

    Send an email to a person via SecureDelivery.com and the recipient gets an email saying "You've got a secure email, click here to view it"

    After creating a passphrase you can go back and click the link _again_ to view the email. However, SecureDelivery doesn't save any /unread/ emails past 7 days, but what about regular emails? Will I have to have a folder filed with obscure links pointing to SecureDelivery in order to get these messages at a later date? It seems like a good idea on the surface, but there are still some things to be worked out (imho).

  • Ummmm... why no SSL? (Score:3)

    by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:31AM (#594073) Homepage

    Yahoo's new system works like this: Once a message is composed, it travels, unencrypted, to Yahoo, which sends it through a secure connection to SecureDelivery.com. There, the message and any attachments are scrambled.


    Unencrypted between end-user and Yahoo! ? So a sniffer either at the local network (the norm, I'd think, at many institutions) or a crack at Yahoo! would still work?

    Strange decision.

  • Protocol (Score:3)

    by Frums ( 112820 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @08:02AM (#594074) Homepage Journal
    Actually, the protocol Zix uses may be even worse than you all have been pointing out. Even assuming it was fixed to upload and download from SecureMail (and Yahoo if you are using them to access ZixMail) the signature encryption algorithm they are using seems to be a security through obscurity scheme.

    About three weeks ago I contaced Zix through a series of e-mails asking for detailed information on their protocol and algorithms. They, impressively, sent me back a marketingese "white paper" (I only put it in quotes because it was more brochure than real technology white paper) within two hours. They started out on good footing, customer service has a quick turnaround.

    Upon examination of this "white paper" I sent back a few more questions looking at glaring holes in thge paper - what hash algorithm they use for signing all of the data going back and forth from securewhatever.com while establishing the session key for the Triple-DES encrypted message (running on memory of their protocol here as I threw out their white paper at the end of this).

    Anyway, I shot that (easiest answer) and a couple others (the plaintext over http as many people have pointed out) questions back figuring I misunderstood something, and they again replied right away.

    They sent me yet another copy of their marketing "white paper" and didn't answer any questions. I replied once more, stating in clear terms my questions were not answered in that white paper, and were vaild questions to ask before entrusting my data to their service. No reply that time.

    It downright scares me when they won't tell you what algorithm they use for anything other than their primary body encryption (triple-des). It seems their protocol can be attacked fairly easily to spoof messages, and in fact relying on the one server (though a standard pki solution as well) that is under their control and, er, not that I would ever test this, but have "heard" from people, looks to have some unpatched holes in certain daemons allowing for buffer overflow attacks, and probably is quite suscepable to DDoS attacks, well. Anyway.

    On a completely different note - why anyone would bother with a fancy, fallible, protocol in order to support a session based key for symmetric encryption is beyond me when the encryption decryption process instead of using something like ElGamal (now free! woot!) and using private/public key authentification is beyond me. Their clients are not going to be major corporations sending large documents, but rather many many individuals sending small documents. Message size (plaintext*2) and encrypt decrypt speed (*(10..100) depending on implementation) are still not enough hassle for e-mail sized documents that it seems silly to me. Ah well. It just leaves the door open for when i finally put SecureJMail up on sourceforge.

    Frums

  • Re:Good (Score:3)

    by dturley ( 135556 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:29AM (#594075)
    What's the point? The email travels as plaintext to yahoo before it is encrypted. If you really think someone is intercepting your mail, they are going to do it between you and yahoo. Sounds more like a marketing gimmick than anything else

  • Re:Good (Score:3)

    by porcorosso ( 178451 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:58AM (#594076) Homepage
    it might even merit a few minutes on FBI's Deep Crack

    If Deep Crack doesn't work, maybe they could run it through Secret Sphincter!

    ...

    Ok, back to work

  • Re:Good (Score:3)

    by NullAndVoid ( 181397 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:38AM (#594077)
    Let the "commoners" think that they're getting security. But for now, they're providing background cover to help hide the mail that truly needs encryption.

    So you're assuming that the need for encryption is directly related to technical competence? My guess is there are plenty of people living in places with truly oppressive governments who would be fooled into thinking "secure" Yahoo email really is secure. Web-based email is very popular in less developed countries, especially for less technically sophisticated people.

    And there are countries where saying the wrong thing in an email message can get you imprisoned or killed without a trial.

    But I do agree with your basic argument that the more encrypted traffic there is, the better. It would be really nice if encrypting your email had the same lack of stigma as putting a letter in an envelope instead writing a postcard.

  • Re:Why no encrypted upload? (Score:3)

    by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:44AM (#594078)
    Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message?

    The short answer is we're talking about Yahoo here.

    The slightly longer answer is that we're talking about a site that, when you select a secure login for e-mail, switches to SSL just long enough to give you the page where you enter your user-id and password, only to immediatly redirect you back to regular, unencrypted pages. I wouldn't trust these people to protect a piece of pocket lint.

  • Yahoo: The Standard In Excellence (Score:3)

    by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:38AM (#594079) Homepage Journal
    When Yahoo! can manage to keep their email system from being hacked by fourteen-year-olds for more than six months, maybe I'll trust them to handle my encryption.

    ...And just for the record: I know what you're thinking, Hotmail, and that goes doubly for you.

    crib

  • Really confuse them... (Score:3)

    by glebite ( 206150 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:47AM (#594080)

    Every once in a while, I imagine myself writing a script to automatically generate pseudo-encrypted appearing emails. I imagine sending said non-sensical non-meaningful messages to large corporation mailers. I expect on occasion, I would receive e-mails asking not to send them any more messages, and then I would reply - "Message received - the owl hoots at midnight..."

    Government organizations are also another good target for said messages!

    And then I imagine either lawyers or Authority knocking on my door, seizing my equipment, and getting locked up for nuisance reasons...

    Until then: "Sdfd wersl. Jdibg aty qpolacvcc!"

  • Next Yahoo Ad: (Score:3)

    by ABetterRoss ( 216217 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:39AM (#594081) Homepage Journal
    Do You #!jdfsi87?

  • Not so good really (Score:3)

    by buttfucker2000 ( 240799 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:27AM (#594082) Homepage Journal
    It's not secure at all - you could easily trace illegal emails by a court order taken out on Yahoo!.

    Hushmail [hushmail.com] or no-id's anonymous remailer [no-id.com], preferably accessed via anonymous proxy server [anonymizer.com] is better

  • Re:Yahoo! Right? (Score:3)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <(MAPSmoc.mfimcwON) (ta) (rialb)> on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:54AM (#594083) Homepage
    "That same holds true for the internet. Chalk email up to the current level of privacy you get from radio... Now, if all those web based email services adopt encyption of your messages in one form or another, you'll get an added level of security. Yes, law enforcement will still in all likely hood be able to get at your messages, but they'll stay out of the hands of "hackers, crackers and bears (oh my!)"."

    Actually, you have a much better chance of keeping your mail out of the hands of law enforcement than you do hackers, crackers (oh my)

    Hackers and crackers are a risk we all have to take, because there is no such thing as a system that cannot be broken.

    However, I greatly object to allowing law enforcement (government) reading my e-mail. The 5th Amendment is supposed to be absolute protection against self-incrimination. Not that I do anything incriminating, I'm just paranoid. I've seen government become more intrusive and more corrupt in the last 15 years, and it's only prudent to feel some degree of paranoia. Particularly when your political beliefs do not jibe too well with government/establishment types.

    I will be setting up my own POP3 server using Sendmail as soon as I get my own permanent internet connection (DSL/cable, etc). That alone is a lot of protection. However, I will also encrypt my data so that even if some FBI goon seizes my computer because I happened to visit a website that was hacked, they won't be able to read anything. Even if all that is there are portions of my still incomplete sci-fi novel.

    It's the principle of the thing. I believe government has no right to read what is on my computer, so I will take all technical measures within my ability to deny them this.

  • This is not a good thing. For one thing, Yahoo has a history of folding every time user information, etc is demanded of them. This does not at ALL give me confidence in them as an "encrypted" e-mail provider.

    Furthermore, the fact that it IS encrypted will fool many of the less technical users into thinking that it's safe. It isn't.

    Of course, there is no such thing as a totally secure communications system. But, the most secure that can be used by most of us is to use PGP yourself on your own machine. Then it doesn't matter WHICH e-mail service you use.

    Of course, the safest possible way is to run your own Sendmail server on your Linux box (possible if you have DSL/Cable/ISDN), that way you defeat Carnivore and the UK's RIP law.

    Remember though, your "secure" e-mail is also only as secure as the recepient treats it.

    Offering encrypted e-mail service is a good idea. But I'd think that a company that had policies refusing to use Carnivore, and deleted their logs every half-hour would inspire more confidence.

  • Encryption should be well-regulated (Score:3)

    by workers_unite ( 258946 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:24AM (#594085)

    I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion around here, but encryption should be regulated by the government. The smoking gun that caught Microsoft was the e-mails that they sent. Imagine if they had been all encrypted. Microsoft would be even more powerful right now.

    I fear that corporatism will continue to grow more and more powerful if they are able hide their stealing with encryption that the government can't crack. It will make it even more possible to take advantage of the people.


    --

  • Re:Yahoo! Right? (Score:4)

    by um... Lucas ( 13147 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:36AM (#594086) Journal
    I don't think it that carnivore's so much the issue as opposed to people reading your email who really aren't authorized to read it. Prior to the internet, communication was limited to letters, telephone, radio and face to face communication. You had a reasonable expectation of privacy when using letters and face to face communications. You didn't expect much privacy using radio, and somewhere in the back of your mind you realized that your telephone could be tapped if someone was really out to get you.

    That same holds true for the internet. Chalk email up to the current level of privacy you get from radio... Now, if all those web based email services adopt encyption of your messages in one form or another, you'll get an added level of security. Yes, law enforcement will still in all likely hood be able to get at your messages, but they'll stay out of the hands of "hackers, crackers and bears (oh my!)".

    Not too shabby, i'm thinking. If you're really intent on keeping your messages away form the govenrnment, you can still use PGP.

    In the end though, i don't see why people have come to expect privacy on the internet. Yes, i do feel it's wrong that companies like doubleclick can track users across various websites. But you've read over and over that sending plaintext email is equivalent to mailing postcards. Yahoo's now giving their users an envelope. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want more than that, you can roll your own.

  • Completely Useless (Score:4)

    by LittleStone ( 18310 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:37AM (#594087) Homepage Journal
    They have to send your email unencrpted to SecureDelivery.com first to get it encrpted. If someone wants to intercept, they can intercept in this process easily. So the government is still possible to monitor.

    It's more problematic then it seems: people thought that it's safe when indeed there's a big loophole.

  • Re:Lokmail (Score:4)

    by Wubby ( 56755 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @07:55AM (#594088) Homepage Journal
    MailVault.com [mailvault.com] also does PGP over 128bit SSL and plans to open source the whole thing.

  • This may not be encryption for data-security (Score:4)

    by ToLu the Happy Furby ( 63586 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @08:02AM (#594089)
    ...But rather encryption to restrict the recipient's ability to access the data after a certain period of time (a week). In truth, it does both very badly.

    First it is clear that this cannot be a serious attempt at the "traditional" problem of encryption--for the reason pointed out in many posts (unsecure channel between sender and Yahoo!) as well as a deeper one--this system requires you to give full trust to both Yahoo! and Zixit, as there is no proof whatsoever that they will even bother to encrypt your email when passing it between themselves. (And if you would trust a potentially life-and-death secret to two companies named "Yahoo!" and "Zixit" then you deserve what's coming to you.) Finally, there is a huge problem with verification: the recipient merely needs to "verify" that they actually hold the email address the sender specified. And how, pray tell, do they do that? Likely they instead need only temporary access to that account to recieve a (plaintext??) email giving them a temporary password. Good lord.

    Instead it appears to implement an access control restriction--your recipient can only access the email for 7 days before it is gone forever. Of course, this fails for the same reason all access controls fail--the message must finally be displayed in plaintext on an untrusted machine, namely the recipient's. Assuming "Zixit" has implemented some (hackable) fix to the "copy-and-paste attack" (ala the International Lyrics Server), there is still the ever pernicious "screenshot attack". And as always, even if the recipient's machine could somehow be entirely trusted, there is the final undoing of any access control restriction--the digital-to-analog conversion. Just as I can always tape-record the SDMI music coming out of my speakers, and videotape that DVD playing on my TV, this scheme falls rather easily to a pen-and-paper.

    Meanwhile, it doesn't even do the trick of "increasing the amount of encrypted emails the FBI has to look through", because all this traffic is presumably just SSL, and there's a whole bunch of that around. Besides, chances are the FBI/CIA/NSA/KGB/alien invaders would rather just install a keyboard sniffer or run a TEMPEST analysis on your computer than have to solve the FACTORIZATION problem or build huge special-purpose number seives and spend several times the lifetime of the universe waiting around to read your email or invent a quantum computer. (Maybe the aliens would rather do the latter.) Or just bring a warrant to Yahoo!/Zixit, who *both* have full plaintext access to your "encrypted" email and will likely be very happy to comply with the FBI. (Or aliens pretending to be the FBI--has no one noticed how unsecure and spoofable search warrants are?)

    Um, I think what I'm saying is, this appears pretty lame. The only "useful" thing I can think of that this does is destroy the message if it is not accessed within 7 days. Of course, trusting this means trusting that 1)Zixit actually destroys the message; 2) Yahoo! destroys their copy of it; 3) no one intercepted it when it was passed in plaintext from the sender to Yahoo!; 4) any logs or copies of it as it propogated (in plaintext) across the Internet between the sender and Yahoo! were destroyed; 5) it was actually encrypted between Yahoo! and Zixit...

  • Why no encrypted upload? (Score:4)

    by cybaea ( 79975 ) <(moc.aeabyc) (ta) (enalla)> on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:42AM (#594090) Homepage Journal
    Yahoo's new system works like this: Once a message is composed, it travels, unencrypted, to Yahoo, which sends it through a secure connection to SecureDelivery.com. There, the message and any attachments are scrambled.

    Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message? It seems silly not to...

    Somebody mentioned that the message will still be stored in plain-text on Yahoo's servcers. I have never used Yahoo mail, but don't they have an option NOT to store a local copy? Most mail clients have this, and I guess you can always CC yourself to get access to a (more) secure copy of your own mail on the SecureDelivery encryption server.

  • Why Yahoo isn't paying for this (Score:4)

    by Xenex ( 97062 ) <xenex@NOSPAm.opinionstick.com> on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:15AM (#594091) Journal
    You are a small company in the dot.com world, and you want to make a buck.

    Step 1:
    Get 'large dot.com' company that people know of with fun and well known name to 'use' your product, no matter how flawed their implementation is.

    Step 2:
    'Mainstream' online news service (*cough* CNet, ZDnet etc *cough*) latch on to the story that 'large dot.com' is using your product, and that the use of this product is vital to stop the 'evil internet hackers' from doing evil things with your children and credit card numbers.

    Step 3:
    Due to 'informed' userbase, people begin to demand your service for large dot.com's competitors services. Other companies require what the service you provide. Providing service equals more coverate.

    Step 4:
    IPO you well known service.

    Step 5:
    Get out before bubble bursts (well, if it hasn't all ready)

    Internet 'Profits'. Fun huh?

    ------

  • The REAL way to encrypt e-mail (Score:4)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @09:21AM (#594092) Homepage Journal

    I just send my e-mail in a special Pidgin Pig Latin Esperanto dialect I and some friends developed, then save it to file with WordPerfect 3.0. Then I send the file via e-mail. Don't even need PGP. Sometimes I can't read my own stuff, let the FBI do it's worst.

    www.matthewmiller.net [matthewmiller.net]

  • Re:Yahoo! Right? (Score:5)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:07AM (#594093)

    You forgot some critical steps if you want to be secure.

    Not only do you need open source, you need open source that you have personally understood every line of, compiled on a compilers that you wrote in binary youself.

    The last part, compiled on a compiler you wrote youself is very deep: a compromised compiler can destroy all advantage of open source. (See the infamious login hack, which you should look up) If the compiler isn't something you wrote in binary yourself, then you can't be sure that your compiler wasn't compromised. And you really should go deeper, since it is possibal (in theory) for someone to put a little prom in your disk/floppy drive that checks to see if a compiler is being written and compromise it, meaning you have to design your hardware from scratch and make it from silcon you mine yourself. (Note that recignising a hand written compiler and figgureing out how to compromise it might require solving the halting problem, so I don't know if it is possibla in the general case, but it is possibal if everyone works from one binary listing)

    It is worth it to be paranoid, but unfortunatly if everyone was paranoid enough nothing could get done because everyone has to invent their own wheel on up through everything civialization has done.

  • Lokmail (Score:5)

    by Billy Donahue ( 29642 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:52AM (#594094)
    lokmail [lokmail.net]
    is the only webmail service that actually
    uses good old fashioned PGP encryption over
    an SSL link. I think promoting PGP use
    and not a new proprietary encryption system is
    a better way to fly. You can get a free
    PGP webmail account at lokmail right now.
    Ignore Yahoo.

  • Re:Yahoo! Right? (Score:5)

    by locutus074 ( 137331 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @07:07AM (#594095)
    (See the infamious login hack, which you should look up)
    Are you referring to this one [umsl.edu], by chance?

    It certainly made me think the first time I read it. Highly recommended.

    --

  • Oh Boy! (Score:5)

    by Electric Angst ( 138229 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:27AM (#594096)
    This is great! Now, the Feds won't be able to read the "private" e-mails I get from women who want to know if they'd make good porn stars, or want to invite me to watch the wild action at their party house, or the people offering me unaccredited University diplomas!
    Take that, Mr. Fed!
    --

  • Re:Good (Score:5)

    by plover ( 150551 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @05:47AM (#594097) Homepage Journal
    The point is adding more encrypted traffic to a system tends to "hide" other encrypted traffic. It's also a good precedent to get other free e-mail hosts such as Hotmail to encrypt their mail, just to "keep up with the Joneses."

    Look at it math-wise: if 0.1% of the e-mail traffic today is encrypted (which I'm personally guessing would be way high,) if you were to send an encrypted letter to your buddy (whose ISP is being Carnivored,) it'd get noticed. Being only one message out of a thousand, it might even merit a few minutes on FBI's Deep Crack.

    Now, add in all the Yahoo e-mail traffic and that number might rise to 1.0%. Include encrypting lots of Hotmail traffic, and it might rise to 2.0% Pretty soon, there's too much traffic to Deep Crack every encrypted message that runs past. And eventually, once encrypted e-mails outnumber regular e-mails, seeing encrypted traffic go past a router won't even raise a flag.

    If you're actually concerned about security, of course you won't use Yahoo's service. Let the "commoners" think that they're getting security. But for now, they're providing background cover to help hide the mail that truly needs encryption.

    John

  • Bad encryption is worse than no encryption!!! (Score:5)

    by rknop ( 240417 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2000 @06:03AM (#594098) Homepage

    ...because it gives the user a false sense of security.

    The actual encryption algorithm itself here may be fine; I don't know, I can't get the Securedelivery.com site to load. (Not a good sign.) But, as Bruce Schneider is fond of pointing out, it's not just the algorithm, but how it's used. Others here have already noted two problems: one, it's Yahoo's key, so you have to trust them to keep it secure. Two, the message already travels unencrypted to Yahoo, and even Yahoo agrees it's not end-to-end encryption.

    So what, you say. It's more encrypted than Yahoo mail was before, so why not use it? The danger is that the public, who, together with politicans, have demonstrated a startling ability not to understand technology and encryption issues, may start touting this as the solution. A real solution (to the technological aspects, anwyay) is to have end to end encryption, with open source tools that at least in principle can be verified to have no back doors, and with your own personal keys you make yourself. Naturally, this makes the folks who run Carnivore unhappy, becuase they can't just go to Yahoo and demand keys. So, probably having given up the battle to competely outlaw encryption, they stand to benefit greatly from systems such as Yahoo's. The public might potentially be convinced that this is as good as encrypting your mail yourself. Indeed, many seem to have trust in huge companies (as is evidenced by the fact that the FUD attacks against Linux ("who will you sue?") took so long to go away), and may think that having Yahoo do it all for you is better.

    I'd rather see it done right than implemented poorly in a way that might catch on.

    -Rob

Slashdot Top Deals

In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.

Close