Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 165 posts

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#21

Post by joosters »

bluegate010 wrote: post #13
squidlogic wrote: post #9

I think of it like this: usability can be a security feature. If you build a "perfectly secure" piece of software, but it takes a very high level of skill to use it, your users will use something else that is easier to use, but less secure. And then how has your ideologically perfect piece of software helped improve their security? If you make tradeoffs for usability, you will raise the bar because people will actual…

That's the exact line of thinking our lab has been on. Security usability is a tradeoff, and PGP seems to sit too far on the secure end of the spectrum to be useful to most users. We're working on a way to deliver progressively enhanced security, while onboarding less technical users with more usable features.

While mostly true, it's not so clear-cut. While some improvements to usability would reduce the security, there are also things that can be done to make software easier to use and still keep it as secure (for example, in-app help)

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#22

Post by munin »

x5n1 wrote: post #15
munin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so like hushmail?

No you need to provide a desktop client, open source, by default with everything configured in addition to the service. I guess you should also let users use other IMAP servers but the client should always encrypt all mails it sends out. Hushmail was always open to court order attack, a desktop client, an open source one, is much less so. It should always put the name of the client in the subject line or send some un…

oh ok.

this is actually harder to solve than just 'here have thunderbird'. how do you replicate keys across computers? how do you send e-mail from a new computer when you don't have access to your old computer (it turns out the answer is you don't). how do you back up your keys? where do you store them?

there are some high security answers like "ship our users HSMs" but those are very brittle to common failure modes like "i lost it". I think you'll discover that if you try to create something that is both resilient to average negligent use but still encrypted, you'll wind up with something that is basically hushmail.

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#23

Post by makmanalp »

I think it's easy to pick on a weak example, but much progress has been made since the original "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt".

A recent example: Textsecure / Signal has been very, very smooth for me and I doubt it'd be much more difficult for laypeople either: https://whispersystems.org/

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#24

Post by patrickaljord »

Real secure encryption is and always will be not user friendly because it means only you can know the private key. This means no "Forgot my password" functionalities, no fancy powerful cloud AI analyzing your data and suggesting cool stuff, no free hosted full text search of your data, no open directory of friends to search on etc. So basically, no gmail, icloud, facebook, dropbox etc. It would require a complete new paradigm, sure there are interesting techs such as ethereum and bitcoin but they are not user friendly, and don't scale much to the regular user (downloading the whole blockchain is a no-no to most people for example) but most importantly, current solutions are too convenient and work really well (bar privacy and security issues most don't care about). So you'd need a tech that not only is way better, more efficient and smarter than current ones (gmail, google, facebook, icloud etc) but also secure and decentralized. Not happening any time soon but hopefully not impossible either.

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#25

Post by dredmorbius »

stuaxo wrote: post #3

This is something that the UX people of gnome could actually be useful for..

I'm yet to be convinced they'd be useful for anything.

Other than, perhaps, signing on to a competing project to bring it down as well.

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#26

Post by greggarious »

squidlogic wrote: post #9

I think of it like this: usability can be a security feature. If you build a "perfectly secure" piece of software, but it takes a very high level of skill to use it, your users will use something else that is easier to use, but less secure. And then how has your ideologically perfect piece of software helped improve their security? If you make tradeoffs for usability, you will raise the bar because people will actual…

There is actually a whole paper about this by Roger Dingldine: http://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/usability:weis2006.pd...

Basically, you're more anonymous the more people use Tor, so increasing Tor's usability increases it's security.

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#27

Post by x5n1 »

joosters wrote: post #19
x5n1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fork Thunderbird or some such client, also make a web client available. Make a new service which offers only encrypted e-mail by default (with a new e-mail address that includes e-mail hosting for your own domain) and provides the key server and everything else. Advertise it as something different from e-mail like encrypted e-mail. Set a new precedent, create a new industry.

But who would use it? This study is all about getting the average computer user to use PGP. Most people with webmail accounts won't want to switch back to a desktop client and possibly have to change their email address in order to send & receive secure mail. Besides which, 'make a new client' doesn't answer the main issue, which is how to write a usable client. There are plenty of existing unpleasant PGP clients out…

It has to be an all-in-one solution that you download that has to pretty much do everything for you so your mother can download a file and just go. With a simple wizard that lets you register a new e-mail address and potentially allows you to invite other users via their e-mail addresses... imported from Gmail or something like that.

I would not worry too much about compatibility with existing mail solutions or what not. It's a new service which is completely different from e-mail as far as the user is concerned. More advanced users can use it as e-mail if they want. Who would use it? Anyone who does not want all their mail to be a public spectacle.

Plenty of paranoid Americans out there right now that might be willing to give it a try.

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#29

Post by rakoo »

tptacek wrote: post #18
bluegate010 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we probably would have gotten better usability scores if we developed our own PGP client with a better UX and tutorials. We selected Mailvelope because it was rated highly on the EFF's secure messaging scorecard [1] and we were exploring how the state-of-the-art in PGP software actually performed with end users. [1] https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard

There is a lot wrong with that scorecard, and it's dispiriting to hear that it is actually influencing research.

Where can we read more about what's wrong with this scorecard ?

Re: Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client

#30

Post by bluegate010 »

tptacek wrote: post #18
bluegate010 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we probably would have gotten better usability scores if we developed our own PGP client with a better UX and tutorials. We selected Mailvelope because it was rated highly on the EFF's secure messaging scorecard [1] and we were exploring how the state-of-the-art in PGP software actually performed with end users. [1] https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard

There is a lot wrong with that scorecard, and it's dispiriting to hear that it is actually influencing research.

Interesting; I'd really like to hear what issues you have with that scorecard.
Post reply on HN