Comments on: Google wants data — OUR data

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:12:21 +0000

Funny thing happens to “uncrackable” technology. EVENTUALLY it gets cracked. I trust open source more than proprietary stuff but it CAN’T be perfect forever. They just haven’t found out how YET.

By: Liam Jewell

Liam Jewell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:35 +0000

@ everyone
I don’t remember saying that I had anything confidential stored on my computer. Only that if I had something confidential, it’d be encrypted . Also more likely than not, they’d try to get the password out of someone via social engineering or torture if it was a matter of “national security”. But then again, having files the government didn’t have access to might somehow finger that person as a terrorist, and then they’d be allowed to do whatever they wanted anyway right?

Liam

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:56:11 +0000

“Of course, it’s not a strategy: it’s an acquisition plan. And what it would really do is: put all kinds of priceless personal and private data anyone with any sense would want to closely protect into the hands of a huge corporate entity that’s only interested in $$$.”

This hate campaign against Google is getting quite tiring.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:31:40 +0000

@rez
you’re assuming there’s nothing worse on liam’s drive than whatever he’s being charged with.

By: Havvy

Havvy — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:36:43 +0000

Holding data like that on centralized networks isn’t new. It is a good way of moving files around between different places like FTP, only easier for newbs.

By: Rez

Rez — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:03:41 +0000

@liam
If the police can’t get into you’re encrypted hard drive, the jury will presume you’re guilty. :p

By: Liam Jewell

Liam Jewell — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:05:36 +0000

I would advise those who don’t believe me to look at the following:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/archive/index.php/t-9648.html

An excerpt:
“Could you provide proof that AES-128 has not been bruteforced?”

-> Well, since you ask the question in that way, yes, I pretty much believe I can. You specifically say “bruteforced”, not “broken”. Bruteforce means just that - i.e. try all possible key combinations until you hit the right one. With AES-128 you have 2^128 tries to go before you are sure to find the right key. Let’s theorize a bruteforce cracker, chugging along at 1THz, and that it is capable of trying one key every cycle (this is a pretty neat machine by the way, if you find one, let me know… ;-). Now, one 1THz (that’s a thousand GHz) means that it can try 10^12 keys every second. This is about 2^40 keys every second. Ok, this means that we have 2^(128-40) = 2^88 seconds to go, to try search the entire key space. In one year, there are just under 2^22 seconds. This means we need 2^(88-22) = 2^66 years to search the full key space. Now, 2^66 is a pretty long time… All right, let’s be massively parallell here. Let’s build 1 billion of these cracker suckers. 1 billion is 10^9 which is approximately equal to 2^30. So, now we only have to wait 2^(66-30) = 2^36 years to search the full space! Ok, let’s settle for just 1% chance, or let’s say 1/128 chance of finding the right key, then we only have to wait 2^(36-7) = 2^29 years! Don’t hold your breath (that’s about 500 million years).

Cheers!
Liam

By: cyberscan

cyberscan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:52:25 +0000

I will store data on Google’s hard drives. However the data I store will be what I WANT them to see. This data will include such things as inflated projections on next quarter’s profits, fake account info to see who is sharing Google’s data, links to websites that I want to be indexed, fake information on my competitors, and any other data I think that will be useful (to me) for Google to have. Yes, these are interesting times.

By: @ readers write above

@ readers write above — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:39:57 +0000

I google you, it said you were a big fat liar, and we shouldn’t believe anything you say. It also said it was safe and good to give google your data.

By: Liam Jewell

Liam Jewell — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:37:19 +0000

I would have to argue your point about how secure a non-windows encryption was (for instance Axcrypt or TrueCrypt). Even if someone stole my encrypted files, and attached 20 supercomputers to cracking my .axx encrypted excel file, it would take more than any of our lifetimes to break the encryption.

It goes back to one of the general rules of hacking… If you can make it it impossible to break in 17 hours, you are probably safe. That being because police will not normally spend more than 2 work days performing forensic evidence on a machine. To implement encryption that won’t be cracked in a lifetime more than fulfills that requirement, even taking into account that every 18 months computer power doubles.

I’d read up on the details next time if I were you,

Cheers!
Liam

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:33:58 +0000

I don’t see the point for that. If google think I am going to store my stuff on their HD they are delusional.
I did not even used 5% of my 500gb local HD on my system incluiding all the software and I am storing my personal stuff on my 4gb memory stick that I paid only 30$. I really don’t understand the point!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:29:20 +0000

Encryption is not 100% secure. It’s 99% secure to store sensitive data on a machine that NEVER connects to the Internet. The 1% is when someone breaks into your house and steals your computer.

If you become reliant on this service Google can start charging money for it or jack up the price. Don’t pay, your data is gone, like blackmail. If this horrible idea becomes ultra popular in the future most people might stop using hard drives. Then you’re stuck with this. That could get expensive.

By: Liam Jewell

Liam Jewell — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:10 +0000

Jon, that is why then invented encryption :). Personally I prefer the open source Axcrypt (Windows Reliant)
http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/

When you encrypt your files with a 40 digit password with 128 bit encryption, even google would take a while to break through that.

I do forsee this as a possible use on the file sharing scene however. Mostly as a rapidshare alternative. Time will tell.

Liam