• sjsubscribe (12/21/2009)


    GSquared (12/21/2009)


    sjsubscribe (12/21/2009)


    Encryption in general should be a default install at the OS level and apply to all files, not just to database files or express editions. Files like formatted reports, xls and csv dumps, sql scripts, and what not could all use such protections.

    I prefer that as an option, not a default. Could be default in a business setting, but would be a pain in the butt at home. I prefer to be able to recover files off my hard drives directly, especially since I build my own computers.

    If you build your own computers, then the solution is for you to override the default encryption. All others get strong encryption by default. This is the trend anyway in thinking among all major operating systems.

    And when I need to help a family member recover data from a crashed computer, it will be impossible.

    Pictures from their last motorcycle vacation, gone. Downloaded music, gone. Etc.

    Part of the whole purpose of security is balancing cost of protection vs cost of loss vs cost of exposure. Most people, most of the time, will have a higher cost of loss than cost of exposure, for the vast majority of their personal files.

    Do you have steel bars, an alarm system, motion sensors, night-vision CCV cameras sending real-time video to a secure remote location, pressure pads, steel doors with 12-digit PIN mag locks, reinforced concrete walls with penetration-sensing mesh, and seismic records for detecting tunneling, for your garage? Those are all valid security systems that could be built into your home, but most people have locked doors and windows, and maybe an alarm system with a 4-digit PIN and a motion sensor in one or two rooms.

    Why? Because the cost of protection would far outweigh the cost of exposure and loss.

    At the same time, do you park your car downtown with the engine running and the doors unlocked? Or do you do like most people and turn it off, take the keys out, and lock the doors and leave the windows closed? Why? Because that level of cost of protection is far below the cost of exposure/loss.

    You have to balance these things, or you're not actually doing security, you're just involved in some OCD neurosis about "must protect stuff".

    You say it's okay for me to turn off the security on a computer I build for myself, but to force most people to have that same security. I say "force", because most won't know that it exists, much less how to make decisions about it. Why does that make sense?

    Take a look at the most hated feature of Windows Vista, User Account Control (UAC). It forced most people to have a much higher level of security, at very low actual cost. That and lies from Apple, cost them a huge piece of the market (most businesses) and gave them a serious PR black eye.

    Why? Because the perceived cost of protection was higher than the perceived cost of exposure. Microsoft didn't balance those correctly, and they got hurt for it. Rightly so.

    So no, I don't buy the argument that, "it's okay for you to turn your security off if you happen to be a computer professional who knows how to do so, but let's put most people at higher exposure for loss without any real expectation of benefit".

    If you disagree with that, lay out the expected benefit for encrypting personal computer files universally, and the expected loss resulting from that, and quantify the two measures, and prove that I'm wrong.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon