Twitter Upgrading Encryption Methods to Protect User Data

16

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

karolus_Brasil

Open source is named precisely to allow scrutiny of lines of software code . On the other hand , proprietary code is a source in which the user community has no access to your full - content. Thus, despite the criticisms made ​to ​open source by some discussants, open source is safe. For example, the BSD operating system is considered the safest (Cf. https://prism-break.org/). Moreover, in the academic and scientific circles Ubuntu and other Linux versions are widely used (Windows and MAC are for the masses (users without machine knowledge). In the case of open source software TrueCrypt, a Russian software promises to break the encryption of TrueCrypt using the GPU video card. However, the criticism of the open source software does not proceed. Because, if software code was not public; could not be audited by independent groups. We can say that the encryption algorithm that gave the PGP reliable, because its source code was open and widely publicized, even after being found as a weapon of war by the U.S. Government.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Quote:
"despite the criticisms made ​to ​open source by some discussants, open source is safe."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being open source is not what makes software safe but the motives behind the authors of the software

Open source software that connects to the Internet for updates or advertising is UNSAFE!

Even Closed source Antivirus software that runs to the Internet for updates is Unsafe

To illustrate this point, I have intentionally infected a test computer with malware that disables my antivirus which then appears to function normally but never finds the malware even after I update it over the Internet

The antivirus cannot function properly from that moment on and cannot be correctly uninstalled so that a fresh "FULL" copy can be installed to fix the problem even though it "appears" to function properly yet never finds any malware

My "work" computers are never allowed to update over the Internet for ANY software including Antivirus Software

When I need an update, I download a Full, Legitimate copy of the Updated Antivirus directly from the author and not from any other "malware added" download site

This should be the standard for ALL software

never allow updates from the Internet or connections that you are not personally using and trust and never allow an Operating System Manufacturer (Microsoft) to prevent you from blocking any and ALL connections to the Internet from ANY software component even if it is a component of that Operating System itself (Microsoft)

Any O.S. manufacturer that prevents you from blocking ANY Internet connected component is a threat to National Security as well as Public Security and should be outlawed and sued out of existence

Such a software Company is DIRECTLY LIABLE for the security problems they create regardless of what their phony Licensing Agreement tries to Dictate and regardless of which Court upholds those bogus Licensing Agreements. The only reason the Courts uphold these Bogus Agreements is because they directly facilitate Government spying operations with those Operating Systems

In other words, if those back doors and O.S. Licensing Agreements did not allow Government Spying from the moment the O.S. was installed, they would have been outlawed from the very beginning

Open source does not guarantee security but it is still lightyears ahead of closed source in promoting peace of mind and trust in the products you use

avatar

karolus_Brasil

Resuming: last phrase is perfect !!!

avatar

karolus_Brasil

As I understand it, the tweeter will increase security in data traffic (similiar to Onion Network (tor search engine) that has considered credibility (despite recent attempts by governments to overthrow it; being a marginal network (at least for governments) that is, the tweeter will try to implement a security that allows information that enters a network node; exit on another node without being intercepted. Moreover, after 9/11 internet users should not rely on proprietary software (for all software companies, under American law, shall leave a back door to the intelligence agencies to spy the privacy of alleged enemies of the state. therefore, the more reliable will be a micro-blogging based on open source (like sourceforge software RetroShare.) When the source code is open, we can have confidence that does not exist a back door.

avatar

vrmlbasic

After the demise of Silk Road my confidence in Tor is shaken. Supposedly they busted that the "old fashioned way", flipping the guys whom they caught, but I'm not sure that we ever get the "whole truth" on these things. The US government was involved in Tor after all :(

I also don't buy into the "open source = no nefarious code" as who among us really checks every line? I know that I myself generally download the pre-compiled versions of OSS so even if the source isn't bad for all I know the pre-made executable still could be. Also, "OSS" was the forerunner to the CIA lol. ;)

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

"When the source code is open, we can have confidence that does not exist a back door????"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Truecrypt is just now getting a public audit for the first time in it's history which proves that open source does not in itself give anyone confidence as the audit only now comes after the software has been available for several years

Imagine the NSA providing open source security software to instill public confidence that their software provides security to the public

That is the situation everyone now faces

Can you wait 10 years until someone raises $100,000 to publicly audit the next big thing in security software only to find that after 10 years of use, it had a back door all along?

The best advice is Don't Trust Anyone!

By the time you find out they lied, it's too late

WAY too late!

.........and they always lie

avatar

karolus_Brasil

If your thesis, do not trust anyone, were correct, then the most plausible would return to use technological artifacts not connectable. As a popular saying, in technology area says: if someone wants 100% security, when using the internet; then remove plug from the AC (power) socket.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Why should we trust the auditors? What makes them infallible and incorruptible?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

...or the NSA?

The NSA is tasked with finding security threats, so the question is....

Once they became the Security Threat, did they FIND that threat?
Or are they just going to justify that threat in the name of "National" Security by destroying "Public" Security to perpetuate their parasitic existence?

Are they not tasked with protecting the public from the threat they have become?

or will they use it as an excuse to justify their parasite existence by creating the problems they are securing our tax-dollars to find?

I think I just answered my own question

avatar

karolus_Brasil

Great opinion. More, when the organ responsible for the prevention of threats to the state and to American citizens government becomes a threat; American civil society should be organized to tell the state that there are limits to the role of the state in society.

avatar

vrmlbasic

How can the information not be decrypted later on? Wouldn't it have to be in order to be displayed to anyone who went looking for an encrypted tweet in the future, especially if the date of the tweet predates their following of the entity that made the tweet?

avatar

crwlngkngsnk

*yeah, so I F'ed up, so what?*

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

BullShit!

Prove it or STFU

I Guarantee the NSA can access it or double your money back!

avatar

crwlngkngsnk

BullShit!

Prove it or STFU

I Guarantee the NSA cannot access it or double your money back!

Now, how do you propose to settle this bet? Shoot them a friendly email politely inquiring about interception and decryption?

It's a little silly to demand proof when your counter-assertion is equally unprovable. Maybe in ten years another Snowden will clear this up, but until then could you take it easy on the interns, not try to stifle reportage, [i.e. "STFU" (what have you got against the 1st Amendment? Do you hate freedom?)] and stop raving?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Sorry Intern

But that was my point!

I can make equally outrageous claims to the contrary but the fact is that there has never yet been a case were it was conclusively found that our data was actually "protected" from the Gov't and case after case after case were it is being conclusively found to be accessible to the Gov't in direct contradiction to the claims of privacy we hear again and again

It gets a bit tiring after a few thousand years of these continuous lies

avatar

crwlngkngsnk

HAHAHA "Sorry Intern"

The Hell with it, I'm with you Bullwinkle, I don't trust 'em either.