Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: "then Microsoft Office is toast" (tail end of article) (re Google Apps)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:32:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>__/ [ flyer ] on Saturday 03 March 2007 09:51 \__
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:29:32 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>>__/ [ flyer ] on Saturday 03 March 2007 08:03 \__
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:04:48 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>__/ [ flyer ] on Thursday 01 March 2007 05:47 \__
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:13:03 -0800, John Bailo <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>flyer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/27/google_apps_challenge/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Costs $50 per user per year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A bit pricey since Open Office is free!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, and if you need "web access".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then put your documents on a CVS/Subversion site where they can be
>>>>>>>checked in/out and "multiused".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At least it's in MS's face. But I don't think I would ever trust it
>>>>>> for my work.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not? This seems to be a perception that suffers fro myths. Would you
>>>>>not trust LaTeX, which is said to be bug-free?
>>>> 
>>>> For sensitive docs, would you trust it? How would you verify security?
>>>
>>>
>>>Simple. No macros. No binary components and it's all human reedable.
>>> 
>>>
>>>> To date, anything I send via web I assume someone will be, or could
>>>> be, reading, excluding PGP'd email.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even PGP has come under scrutiny. Apparently, the No Such Agency (or maybe
>>>it was the FBI) felt unhappy with Zimmerman's too-powerful-to-snoop
>>>utility, so while it's intruders-proof (e.g. Wi-fi-jacking), there might be
>>>back doors which were added later. One needs to look at the code carefully.
>>>When it comes to SELinux, it appears as though the NSA makes use of some
>>>obscure assembly code, which isn't source code per se. FWIW, there are
>>>almost certainly back door in Windows, which allow full control (not just
>>>to the NSA, but to criminals as well, unfortunately).
>> 
>> Well supposedly PGP 6.58 was the last open source version. After that
>> forget it. Closed crap.
>
>
>Really? Got a reference. I would love to see one. I would also like to know
>if my SSH tunnels are secure at all.

Bop on over to

 grc.techtalk.cryptography

 or perhaps

 grc.techtalk.security (or ...privacy)

and ask there.  They'll probably mention "Imad's" Version,  PGP
6.58CKT.

Some brilliant guys frequent that site. It's Steve Gibson's site, the
guy who created SpinRite -- genius.

Possible the latest PGP versions are open again, but I'm not sure.


Thanks for the other links.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index