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

Gmail confidential mode

gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 206 posts

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#141

Post by hammock »

Spivak wrote: post #82
drglitch wrote: post #72

I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…

This feature isn't about security. Email is already pretty secure with TLS and DKIM. This is basically the equivalent of the "DO NO FORWARD" header people use for internal-only information but with a little more UX polish.

I believe Gmail already has that feature for corporate gsuite- greying out the forward button or something like that. Could be wrong. I know for sure Outlook has it.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#142

Post by snarf21 »

gtsteve wrote: post #139
jjulius wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worthless from a security standpoint, because the screenshots can still be taken from a desktop or laptop device.

You can always steal something if it can be seen. I think it's more of to clearly express that they don't want you to screenshot whatever it is. You can subvert it but you know you're doing something you shouldn't. I don't use AirBnB so I can't actually think why you'd want to disable screenshots in certain places. I'm curious now though, can someone tell me?

I would assume two reasons: 1) Don't let people easily scrape their content and list it on a competitor. 2) Make it hard to people to put up fake listings that look real with the intention of scamming users.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#143

Post by buboard »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #59
buboard wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems it would be more useful to implement things such as "delete message after X days" or "do not forward" instead of mock features like this. Adding an autodelete feature in gmail is overly complex, requires filters + google scripts.

Did you read the actual article? They added that as well.

Right but from the sender's side only. I wish there was an easy way to automate deleting of old messages e.g. auto-deleting my unread messages or most of the newsletter/promotional stuff.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#144

Post by jimbobimbo »

There's a phrase that large companies often use to explain "puzzling" features like this to detractors: you are not the target audience. Often this phrase is mis-used to cover up straight up bad ideas, but in this case it's right on the money.

The target audience for this feature are CIOs of organizations Google sells G-Suite to. Companies do need IRM on emails, to prevent leaks that could happen by accident or intentionally; to limit email audience; to avoid endless replies-to-all on announcements; to put an expiration date on the "perishable" bits of information; etc. I'm pretty positive that they have to have this to compete with Office 365, which had IRM [1] for a very long time.

Yes, it's not perfect, however, if it's there, it mitigates a lot of the issues I mentioned above. Note the wording: "mitigates", not "fixes".

It's interesting that they still list screenshots as a possibility: email clients (e.g. Outlook) are able to utilize OS mechanisms to prevent those as well. I thought that browser protected media APIs would allow Gmail opt-in to this kind of protection too.

[1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/SecurityComplianc...

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#145

Post by lrvick »

gibba999 wrote: post #106
drglitch wrote: post #72

I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…

There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…

Camp #2 is naive and dangerous thinking if your company protects anything of value. Even if every employee is honest today, one of them can be extorted tomorrow. If you allow your employees easy access to substantial value without hard technical controls to enforce accountability then you are creating a situation where someone has reason to threaten or harm your employees.

Gas stations have "Never more than $200 in the drawer" for a reason. Criminals knowing that is the case deters most of them and if it doesn't you are out $200 at most.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#146

Post by mattkrause »

gtsteve wrote: post #138
gibba999 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…

Exactly. You might just forward an e-mail to someone with an action without thinking of the e-mail chain below. But if you're taking screenshots or photos of a secure e-mail because it doesn't allow you to copy the text, you know you're doing wrong.

I’m not so sure.

I can easily imagine this system “training” users to take screenshots, especially if their correspondents are a little to eager to use this feature. It would only take a few rounds of “I sent you this”/“No you didn’t” with the boss, or the computer “eating” important documents.

Now you’ve normalized this deviance and emails are now spread all over creation (including personal devices) and in a much less searchable format....

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#147

Post by ABCLAW »

gibba999 wrote: post #106
drglitch wrote: post #72

I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…

There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…

No, these records will remain discoverable through Vault, unless I'm reading things wrong.

In fact, these records will be even more discoverable than the standard inbox dumps because they're pre-curated with messages that the senders thought were sensitive.

It appears the only point where there's an extra hoop to jump through is with an external sender. In cases where that sender is in another jurisdiction or the investigation is purely internal, the added cost will likely stop further inquiry.

I can see legal departments requesting filters to block acceptance of external messages as a result. Just takes the metadata from one confidential email a competitor sends you to make it look like you're a bad colluding boy.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#148

Post by smolder »

ABCLAW wrote: post #147
gibba999 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…

No, these records will remain discoverable through Vault, unless I'm reading things wrong. In fact, these records will be even more discoverable than the standard inbox dumps because they're pre-curated with messages that the senders thought were sensitive. It appears the only point where there's an extra hoop to jump through is with an external sender. In cases where that sender is in another jurisdiction or the inv…

Agreed, this almost seems geared towards enhancing spying in that sense.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#149

Post by mmis1000 »

drglitch wrote: post #72

I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…

I though 'secure' here is misleading. The feature here actually sounds more like an accident prevent tool to prevent your coworkers from accidentally forward / share the contents to someone it should not to. And does not provide any sense of 'security' at all. Thinking it is 'secure' actually open up a big security loophole instead provide any extra security to you.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#150

Post by lern_too_spel »

ktpsns wrote: post #2

> removing options for recipients to forward, copy, print, and download Oh please... Everybody can do a screenshot nowadays, and even Google itself integrated OCR into its Screenshot tool at Android a few years ago. What a waste of time to make the life of people harder who must use this "security" feature!

This is a feature Outlook has had for years. Users understand it. It's only pedantic geeks who don't seem to understand the use cases.
Post reply on HN