21–30 of 53 posts
I must admit I'm having a lot of fun with Dall-E! I'll probably write a post about my experience so far with it
I think more secure way of storing data is offline backup, at least 2 geographic locations should be used.
This is a great example of the difference between "safe" and "secure". Two locations is intrinsically less secure, not more. You're exposed to exfiltration from either site. It is, however, safer, because you need both sites to fail before you lose data.
At least now I feel better about not having an "off-site backup" (I'm a "prosumer", not actually working in the feild).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great example of the difference between "safe" and "secure". Two locations is intrinsically less secure, not more. You're exposed to exfiltration from either site. It is, however, safer, because you need both sites to fail before you lose data.
I never thought of it that way but it's obvious now that you point it out. Physical access -duh! unless you can control both places (eg an office and a second office), but even then break-ins happen. At least now I feel better about not having an "off-site backup" (I'm a "prosumer", not actually working in the feild).
I mean any cloud is trivial to secure if you just use strong encryption on anything you put on it.
Now, before you say "I don't do anything illegal so it doesn't matter, I'm only worried about corporations" think for a minute about how often companies do have ties (even informal ones -like friends) with people who work in agencies with those resources. You still run the very real and likely risk of a quid-pro-quo ("hey, if you can give us a way to peek into these encrypted drives we'll leave the listings out for you /wink").
In the year of Our Lord 2022 I really would not trust cloud encryption -strong or otherwise; at least not for me personally and my personal/hobby data. If I was working for a company that has a legal department with teeth behind me and I was storing things on the cloud for them? That would be a different ballgame.
> you can even choose to store it on an external drive I can already to that. Why do I need Anita?
With most web based apps usually the user is pretty locked in. Anita tries to bridge the gap between installable and non-installable apps.
I mean any cloud is trivial to secure if you just use strong encryption on anything you put on it.
Here's the deal -is there an ecryption that's actually secure against state-level actors? Someone with the resources of the FBI etc? Now, before you say "I don't do anything illegal so it doesn't matter, I'm only worried about corporations" think for a minute about how often companies do have ties (even informal ones -like friends) with people who work in agencies with those resources. You still run the very real and…
Any modern symmetric encryption is extremely likely to be safe against state-level actors for the observable future assuming your encryption key is not compromised and has enough entropy in it. Even with quantum computers you only need twice longer keys. Roughly, AES-256 would provide AES-128 level of security in the presence of practical quantum computers.
If you feel especially paranoid about potential backdoors in algorithms, you can chain several algorithms from different organizations (e.g. AES, Kuznyechik, ChaCha20, and SM4) initialized with different keys. Though such practice is frowned upon by cryptographers.
I think more secure way of storing data is offline backup, at least 2 geographic locations should be used.
This is a great example of the difference between "safe" and "secure". Two locations is intrinsically less secure, not more. You're exposed to exfiltration from either site. It is, however, safer, because you need both sites to fail before you lose data.
Many definitions of security include integrity and availability as a properties to protect - and storing data in multiple locations can definitely help protect both of those.
The statement "the most secure cloud is your computer ... because you have full control over your computer" is false. Many, many people have lost control of their own computer, either physically through loss or theft, or virtually through malware. There is nothing particularly secure about the machine that happens to be on your desk.
Maybe this is a silly way of making my point, but I just think the average person's home is much less of a juicy target and has much less of an attack surface than a cloud provider. (edits for wording)
I mean any cloud is trivial to secure if you just use strong encryption on anything you put on it.
Here's the deal -is there an ecryption that's actually secure against state-level actors? Someone with the resources of the FBI etc? Now, before you say "I don't do anything illegal so it doesn't matter, I'm only worried about corporations" think for a minute about how often companies do have ties (even informal ones -like friends) with people who work in agencies with those resources. You still run the very real and…
Yes. AES-256.
One-Time Pads as well, but of course then you have the problem of how to securely store the pad.