On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>wrote:
On 9/6/13 12:54 AM, t.p. wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:56 AM
The design I think is practical is to eliminate all UI issues by
insisting that encryption and decryption are transparent. Any email that
can be sent encrypted is sent encrypted.
That sounds like the 'End User Fallacy number one' that I encounter all
the time in my work. If only everything were encrypted, then we would be
completely safe.
Actually, I disagree that this fallacy is at play here. I think we need to
separate the concept of end-to-end encryption from authentication when it
comes to UI transparency. We design UIs now where we get in the user's face
about doing encryption if we cannot authenticate the other side and we need
to get over that. In email, we insist that you authenticate the recipient's
certificate before we allow you to install it and to start encrypting, and
prefer to send things in the clear until that is done. That's silly and is
based on the assumption that encryption isn't worth doing *until* we know
it's going to be done completely safely. We need to separate the trust and
guarantees of safeness (which require *later* out-of-band verification)
from the whole endeavor of getting encryption used in the first place.
Actually, let me correct my earlier statement.
I believe that UIs fail because they require too much effort from the user
and they fail because they present too little information. Many times they
do both.
What I have been looking at as short term is how to make sending and
receiving secure email to be ZERO effort and how to make initialization no
more difficult than installing and configuring a regular email app. And I
think I can show how that can be done. And I think that is a part of the
puzzle we can just start going to work on in weeks without having to do
usability studies.
The other part, too little (or inconsistent) information is also a big
problem. Take the email I got from gmail this morning telling me that
someone tried to access my email from Sao Paulo. The message told me to
change my password but did not tell me that the attacker had known my
password. That is a problem of too little information.
The problem security usability often faces is that the usability mafia are
trained how to make things easy to learn in ten minutes because that is how
to sell a product. They are frequently completely clueless when it comes to
making software actually easy to use long term. Apple, Google and Microsoft
are all terrible at this. They all hide information the user needs to know.
I have some ideas on how to fix that problem as well, in fact I wrote a
whole chapter in my book suggesting how to make email security usable by
putting an analog of the corporate letterhead onto emails. But that part is
a longer discussion and focuses on authentication rather than
confidentiality.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. I think that the NSA/GCHQ has often
managed to discourage the use of crypto by pushing the standards community
to make the pudding so rich nobody can eat it.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/