×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

180 comments

$lashdot: News for Nerds? Or Propaganda for the Im (-1)

RoboTroll (560160) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124086)

$lashdot: News for Nerds? Or Propaganda for the Impressionable?

Day in and day out, $lashdot sings the praises of "open source" software. New readers of the site must be a little puzzled to find items like "GPL Violation discovered" and "Open Source Guru Speaks" listed on the main page alongside the "straight" science and technology news. Unfortunately, few people really know what Open Source stands for. Perhaps Richard Means Stallman, one of the founders of the movement, can elucidate.


"[The GNU goal was] to be able to use a computer without using any proprietary software," [cnn.com]
declaims RMS. [cnn.com] "Because that way, you can lead a better life." Of course, the only way to get rid of proprietary software is to destroy the software companies that produce it. One way this is accomplished is by putting software that would normally be public domain under a license RMS himself created, called the "General Public License," or "GPL." Simply put, this license allows code to be reused-- unless the final product is distributed without its source code, as a proprietary product must be.


Software is a commodity, and people will often take the cheapest product, even if they have to spend inordinate amounts of time struggling with poor documentation and clumsy user interfaces. "One of the best things I could do with my life is: find a gigantic pile of proprietary software that was a trade secret, and start handing out copies on a street corner so it wouldn't be a trade secret any more," enthuses RMS. [free-soft.org] [free-soft.org] "Perhaps that would be a much more efficient way for me to give people new free software than actually writing it myself."


ItÂs time to stop the doubletalk and start thinking about the real meaning of intellectual property. By some measures, intellectual property is the main export of the developed countries of the world. Artists, actors, and musicians make a living off the intellectual property they produce. Programmers and engineers create designs to be sold. And journalists and writers depend on intellectual property. Ironically, the only jobs not deeply tied to intellectual property are the jobs many $lashdot readers affect to despise, like service workers, menial laborers, and administrators. If $lashdot readers canÂt stomach Scott McNealy, maybe they would prefer to work with Ronald McDonald. From the other side of the fast food counter.


Not everyone enjoys working at a menial job in the day, simply in order to slave away at poorly organized programming projects. Not everyone enjoys being told that he has the "freedom" to work, without pay, for a small clique of free software partisans. It is one thing to oppose microsoftÂs monopoly on the desktop, and the RIAA's slow strangulation of fair use rights. It is quite another to embrace a whole economic and political ideology that centers around the exploitation of childlike programming savants.


This message is not a troll, although many $lashdot readers may take it as such. It is simply a warning to users to think carefully before they blindly follow the political lead of Rob Malda, Jon Katz, and the like. I encourage readers to repost the text of this message, and others like it, to the supposedly "free" message boards of $lashdot and other sites.


Peace out, and God bless.

Troll 46 of 139 from the annals of the Troll Library [slashdot.org] .

slashdot still looking for Pretty Gay Penis buyer (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124087)

eat it you damn hippies - better start polishing your resumes, not each others cranks.

butt-spelunking (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124088)

is really fun. maybe if you browse at -1, that's what you're trying to do.

Trolling is Dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124090)

I remember when there were good, decent and honest trolls on /.

Flaimbait! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124259)

Yeah right. Like all the /. trolls are going to flame the poster!

Sheesh! Slashdot moderation isn't worth shit!

Sad.. (4, Interesting)

dj28 (212815) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124095)

I actually bought a version of PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 from these guys. It comes with some nice extras such as a very nice firewall. It's a shame that not enough people contributed to the development. Hopefully they will open source the latest version so that development can continue for long after one year.

Re:Sad.. (3, Interesting)

kerrbear (163235) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124191)

I actually bought a version of PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 from these guys.

Er, what happens to all the files people encrypted with PGP ten years from now when their personal versions no longer run on the new OSs? If PGP Personal Security is rendered obsolete, will there be a way to retrieve those files, or should they be unencrypted now and re-encrypted with something that is going to stick around?

I've got some pretty important .pgp files lying around. Should I switch to something else or am I not understanding something here?

Re:Sad.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124219)

There are open source versions of PGP compatible with the commercial products. Try here http://www.pgpi.org/ and in particular here http://www.pgpi.org/download/gnupg/

Re:Sad.. (2, Informative)

mhyclak (35694) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124306)

I'd encourage you to switch to an open source project such as GnuPG just out of principle, but I do believe it can also interact with PGP encrypted things (to certain limitations... see the GnuPG FAQ [gnupg.org] on the subject. Basically if it's implementing OpenPGP, GnuPG can read it.

NA made PGP into bloatware! (4, Informative)

SomethingOrOther (521702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124724)


it comes with some nice extras such as a very nice firewall

And that is partly the reason nobody bought it.
PGP evolved into a nice e-mail encryption program. NA added so much crap to this (VPN that hardly worked, Firewall, hard drive encyption) they forgot there core market..... secure E-MAIL and convincing people that it was nessisary!
(In a corperate enviroment, people alredy have firewalls etc... NA just made PGP more complex)

I actually bought a version of PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
YTC !!!
NA never published the source code for version 7. That was the reason Phil Zimmerman left NA.
Version 6.5.8 could be downloaded [pgpi.org] as freeware and is every bit as compatable!

Mixed feelings (5, Informative)

rknop (240417) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124096)

I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, PGP was revolutionary and is probably one of the main reasons encryption is as free and available today as it is. If Phil hadn't released that (at the expense of considerable suffering), I suspect that the governments of the world would have been able to clamp down on encryption big time, and all of us law abiding types would take it as an axiom that none of us really need anything like that, only terrorists do. It's sad to see the company that was carrying that torch give up on it. I fear this is just one more indication that personal encryption of e-mail and such isn't really going to catch on with the masses.

On the other hand, NAI's not been a perfect angel. Phil left them because of differences about releasing (if memory serves) source code-- not because Phil is an open source advocate per se, so much as for reasons of being able to verify the security. And, myself, I'm an open source geek and have been using GnuPG for quite some time as my encryption software of choice. There still is hope that GnuPG will be turned into something that can catch on with the masses (just like there's hope, however faint, that things like GNOME and KDE will catch on with the masses).

-Rob

Re:Mixed feelings (2, Redundant)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124119)

There still is hope that GnuPG will be turned into something that can catch on with the masses (just like there's hope, however faint, that things like GNOME and KDE will catch on with the masses).

Is there any way that GnuPG could be built with a nice GUI for Windows? The fact is that for the time being, encryption will be worthless if the Windows users can't get the software.

Re:Mixed feelings (2, Informative)

wafath (91271) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124421)

Take a look at http://www3.gdata.de/gpg/ [gdata.de] . It's in German. Use Google [google.com] to translate.

It's beta, but if you use Outlook, it seems to do the job very nicely. If you go to the GPG page, there is also a link for another program that is a plug in for outlook express.

W

gpg (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124508)

Actualy, gpg works on windows. I actualy wrote a COM interface for it a while back at my old job.

Re:gpg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124611)

He didnt say 'does it work on windows' - he asked if there was a nice front end, so non-geeks dont have to go something like:

GPG -mw23942 -mx77448 -p -d -c -v -b -b "hilugdg" >file.txt

or whatever.

who feels suspicious about this too? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124112)

Seems from comments I read in other places (theregister.co.uk,newsforge.com,...) they never did any serious effort to market PGP. Still, there is a market for products like this. It is even growing. Some article also mentioned certain US government administrations as key clients... Doesn't this look a little suspicious?

Lots of products left allright, but easy to use? (2, Informative)

pmsr (560617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124120)

Not in your wildest dreams. PGP Desktop was as easy as it gets.

/Pedro

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124232)

easy, damn straight. not saying it's great, not saying it isn't, but it sure as hell is easy and is for OS X ONLY:

Cypher is an easy-to-use interface to a powerful encryption and decryption tool: ccrypt. Peter Selinger's (selinger@users.sourceforget.net) ccrypt tool is an open-source, fast, and powerful encryption/decryption program. For more information on ccrypt and to download the source code, please visit the ccrypt site at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ccrypt/.

Cypher was developed by ernieWare. For more information, visit the Cypher (http://homepage.mac.com/jhammer/cy) homepage.

Cypher is very easy to use. The easiest way to encrypt a file is to just drag and drop it onto Cypher's icon. Enter the passphrase you want to encode the file with and click "OK". That's it.

To decrypt a file, just drag the file onto the Cypher icon. Make sure the "Decrypt" icon is selected. Enter the passphrase you encoded the file with and click "OK". That's it.

Cypher allows you to create self-decrypting files. If you check the "Save as self-decrypting" button, then Cypher will encrypt your file, then turn it into an application. This allows any Mac OS X user that you send the encrypted file to to open and decrypt the file -- even if they don't have the Cypher application installed (and provided they enter the correct passphrase to decrypt it).

About ccrypt Encryption (from the ccrypt README file):

ccrypt is a utility for encrypting and decrypting files and streams. It was designed to replace the standard unix crypt utility, which is notorious for using a very weak encryption algorithm. ccrypt is based on the Rijndael cipher, which is the U.S. government's chosen candidate for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES, see http://www.nist.gov/aes/). This cipher is believed to provide very strong security.

ccrypt License

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (1)

pmsr (560617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124263)

File encription is very easy with several products. But what key management? And what about email? That is where these products fail.

/Pedro

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124280)

what about email? so you create a word doc, encrypt it and attach it to your dang email. hard? not.

key management? i'll do that for myself. hard? not.

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (2)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124410)

what about email? so you create a word doc, encrypt it and attach it to your dang email. hard? not.

Oh that's JUST how I want to get "average joes" using encyrption on e-mail. By building up big freaking attachments and slinging the attachments around, forcing the recipient to download the attachment, save it, decrypt it, and load it in $APPLICATION.

Are you stoned?

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (2)

Pfhreakaz0id (82141) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124448)

Nope. he's not stoned, he's just a Linux user who thinks that is "ease of use."

He doesn't realize that half the non geeks only attach documents to an email by using Word/Excel/Powerpoint's "mail this document" feature. I couldn't tell you the number of times I've had to show people how to attach a another kind of document (like a picture).

Re:Lots of products left alright, but easy to use? (2, Funny)

pmsr (560617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124442)

Key management? Why all the fuss? Just send the attachment password by email! ;-)

/Pedro

Re:Lots of products left allright, but easy to use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124590)

easy as proxo or zonal? Yeah, right pad're PGP wuz another 6-finger webfoot bitch.

It's a shame (3, Interesting)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124122)

That a product as great as PGP is going under. I personally think that if it had stayed the way it was before the buyout, it would still be around. I wonder if something like this could eventually happen to /. or Gnome.

This is the reason I am always concerned when a major company snatches up some cool new technology; they see it in major use by techs/geeks/etc, and think, "hey, with some good marketing...". They fail to understand what features matter to the original audience, fail to capture a new audience, and then drop the product.

In the meantime, it strands people who used to like the product. I was a major PGP user since its inception. Now, I can't stand the darned thing. I tried the Palm and Pocket PC versions, I tried the Windows versions. They added too many toys and widgets to a small, light application.

Oh well. I hope the Gnu PGP clone keeps up.

-WS

Re:It's a shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124433)

That a product as great as PGP is going under. I personally think that if it had stayed the way it was before the buyout, it would still be around. I wonder if something like this could eventually happen to /. or Gnome.

Yes, because it eventually happens to everything.

High Profile Use Case (3, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124125)

PGP encryption could use a nice high profile use case where its use saved the ass of someone the average joe could relate to.

I really dont think that the average consumer is concerned about having their private messages intercepted. (The logic is usually: "I dont do anything bad. Hey, waitaminute. Why are /you/ so interested ... ?")

That being said, I'm not surprised that it was difficult to find a buyer for them. The market really hasn't encountered the high profile case that justifies wide spread deployment of PGP use. I think .. ?

Re:High Profile Use Case (3, Informative)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124210)

A good use case would be a major bennie, but I think you're coming at it from the wrong end. PGP isn't just used to encrypt/decrypt messages. The canonical four tasks:

    • Encryption/Decryption (Shh! Don't tell anyone this!)
    • Tamper Detection (Dude. Did someone mess with this message?)
    • Authentication (Hey - who really wrote this?)
    • Nonrepudiation (Fess up. I know you wrote this.)

Rather than looking for situations where PGP prevented someone from intercepting a communictation - often very difficult to know ever happened - I'd be looking for case studies in which someone tried to tamper with a message and was foiled because of the PGP signature, or tried to forge a message... you get the idea.

Re:High Profile Use Case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124229)

"That being said, I'm not surprised that it was difficult to find a buyer for them. The market really hasn't encountered the high profile case that justifies wide spread deployment of PGP use. I think .. ?"

I'll bet all the evil doers at Enron and Microsoft wished their emails were encrypted. Encryption reall is the ultimate digital document retention policy.

Re:High Profile Use Case (2)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124480)

Amnesty International [amnesty.org] uses PGP to protect their people (e.g. witnesses, reporters, etc.) from abusive governments. If the documents they sent could be decoded by these governments, the corrospondents referred to in the documents would be tortured and killed. Of course, while this is relatively high-profile, they are a non-profit organization and therefore can use the free version, so NAI doesn't get any money from them.

PGP is a joke (3, Insightful)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124127)

Who cares? I stopped taking PGP seriously when NAI decided to stop releasing source code and expected me to 'just trust them' instead. Any crypto company that does that obviously knows nothing about security.

Re:PGP is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124171)

Any crypto company that does that obviously knows nothing about security.

And you do I suppose!

I had a look at your website and I would strongly recommend that you get your mommy to hit you very, very hard with a Cluestick(tm) before you go to bed tonight!

For fuck's sake: A business card with a public key printed on it. If any sorry-assed geek handed me one of those I'd shove it up his nose.

Re:PGP is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124175)

monkeytongue.com [monkeytongue.com]

Re:PGP is a joke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124185)

"Without doubt one of the most original and thought-provoking web sites in existence today."

Re:PGP is a joke (1)

marktwen (138663) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124307)

Hey, Dwayne -- That business card is pretty cool. What do all those parameters mean? (I'm still basically clueless about sec, 'cept what was in Cryptonomicon.) :)

What difference will it make? (5, Funny)

maelstrom (638) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124129)

It's not like there is highspread usage of PGP/GPG anyway. I have been trying to use PGP ever since Phil Zimmerman was still coding on it himself, but I've never been able to convince any of my friends to use it often enough to make it useful.

I'm glad the option is there, and I know it's done a lot of good in a lot of places, but even using e-mail encryption automatically draws attention to yourself. It would be far better if everyone used it for every e-mail they sent. It would be great if keysigning and verification was a normal event in meatspace, but it just isn't to be. How is it that SSH and OpenSSH became so widespread but PGP and GPG haven't?

I think it's because PGP and GPG have such a sucky interface. It takes me forever to read the manual every time, and the integration with current mail programs sucks! Evolution seems to be fixing this and I know mutt and pine can support it, but it's just too much work to setup if no one else you e-mail can do it too!

Is there any hope? I'd like to think so, but only if it becomes the default in hotmail and MS Outlook will it become widespread, and what are the odds of that? *sigh*

Re:What difference will it make? (2, Interesting)

flipflapflopflup (311459) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124144)

At work, we are generallyrequired to use PGP for *all* project releated email, it's usually in the contract with the client. We use PGP 7, which, 99% of the time, works flawlessly with MS Outlook whn installed properly.

The problem comes when the person at the other end doesn't grasp public key encryption - which still seems a sticking point for a lot of people. Maybe they should teach it at High school?

Re:What difference will it make? (5, Insightful)

Boiling_point_ (443831) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124160)

Is there any hope? I'd like to think so, but only if it becomes the default in hotmail and MS Outlook will it become widespread, and what are the odds of that?

That's the trouble with encryption, and security in general. It takes effort to be secure. You can trust an algorithm with your life, but do you trust the piece of software you installed on the computer you assembled out of parts you bought off the shelf? Sadly, strong encryption built as a default into something like Outlook might cause more trouble than its worth, in misplaced trust.

Most Outlook users wouldn't know how to tell if their private key had been compromised by some email malware. If they're using email for tasks that SHOULD be kept private because they trust that Outlook will make it safe, then where will we be?

Re:What difference will it make? (2)

maelstrom (638) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124196)

That's the trouble with encryption, and security in general. It takes effort to be secure.

Agreed 100%, but generally I can sit down at a default install of Red Hat and know that I've got a cryptographically secure /dev/random, and a port of OpenSSH sitting right there waiting for me to use. Its cake to enable an ssh server, allowing remote access and file transfers.

All the normal user has to do to increase security over telnet is type ssh instead of telnet. E-mail needs to be the same way! They should just have to click one button and be more secure. Yes, this gives some illusions, but if we can make e-mail slightly more private from prying eyes it is worth it to me.

I'd have a hard time trusting my life to any software at all, but I'd have no problem trusting that encryption would at least keep a prying sysadmin out of my email! :)

Re:What difference will it make? (3, Interesting)

Dr_Claw (68208) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124319)

That's the trouble with encryption, and security in general. It takes
effort to be secure.

Absolutely. There are two huge problems. Firstly, it's easy to use things like PGP and set things up so that it's easily crackable. That requires knowledge (at all levels, from something as simple like making sure your private keys are only accessable by you, to the code using decent random generators).

Secondly, you have to care about being secure all the time. One lapse and you're wide open. This is an even bigger sticking point for the masses. Just the other day I was ranting about certain programs (I won't go into which ones here), and for each one of my main reasons for not using them was security or privacy concerns. The person I was trying to convince noticed that and basically asked why that was a big deal. This kind of took me by suprise, and so I did a quick poll of other reasonably computer literate friends (they would all know about PGP for example). Sure enough, most of them do not care if files on their computer can be read, so long as damage isn't done to the PC, etc, etc. I don't understand it, but it appears people are like that.

One random thought is that really email could do with a big overhaul. SMTP, email format, all kinds of aspects. Building encryption and authentication into that from the start would make things a hell of a lot cleaner and help make the above problems less of an issue. But sadly I think I'm dreaming that that will happen any time soon.

Re:What difference will it make? (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124555)

Most Outlook users wouldn't know how to tell if their private key had been compromised by some email malware.

Malware like Outlook, for example?

Re:What difference will it make? (2, Interesting)

Stigmata669 (517894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124161)

"and the integration with current mail programs sucks! " Think Hushmail [hushmail.com] . Encryption standard web based email system.

Re:What difference will it make? (3, Insightful)

Foxman98 (37487) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124179)

Can't agree with you more. I setup PGP/GPG for myself at one point in the past. Fact of the matter is, hardly anyone uses it. The reason for this? Simple - the average e-mail user is not aware of how open their e-mail really is. I remember eplaining to a co-worker that their e-mail was readable to anyone in the world who really wanted to. After explaining this fact (the whole "don't write anything you wouldn't write on a postcard" theory) they still didn't seem to "get it". So I decided to show them. I had them send a message to another co-worker while dsniff was watching their machine. Should've seen the look on their face when they say the e-mail displayed on my terminal. Point is - average user hears about, and knows that e-mail isn't entirely secure, but I don't think they realize just a) how insecure it is and b) how easy (and illegal) it can be to sniff it.

Re:What difference will it make? (1)

torinth (216077) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124279)

I think it's because PGP and GPG have such a sucky interface. It takes me forever to read the manual every time, and the integration with current mail programs sucks! Evolution seems to be fixing this and I know mutt and pine can support it, but it's just too much work to setup if no one else you e-mail can do it too!

If you really think so, take a look at Cypherus [cypherus.com] by APMSafe.com. We designed it to be really easy to use, for exactly that reason. Granted, it's currently Windows-only, and closed-source, but I imagine that works for alot of people. When I was still working there, we did a whole lot of work with windows internal stuff to be able to get it integrated into everything from your desktop, to Eudora and Outlook, to even Outlook Express (which we didn't even think was possible, at first). Check it out.

-Andrew

Re:What difference will it make? (2)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124335)

I think it's because PGP and GPG have such a sucky interface. It takes me forever to read the manual every time, and the integration with current mail programs sucks!

Have you tried Evolution [ximian.com] yet? It integrates as seamlessly with GPG as PGP does with Outlook. All you have to do is type in your passphrase after you hit 'send'.

Re:What difference will it make? (2)

maelstrom (638) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124406)

Yes, I have and I even mentioned it in my post :) However easy it is integrated, it doesn't solve the problem of initially generating the key, figuring out how to extract your public key into text, giving the right key to someone else, getting their key, figuring out how to put it into your keyring, etc, etc. :)

There's a program called sea-horse that I've tried that provides a very minimal gui frontend for gpg, but like I said, not worth the effort for me to use it yet, but here's hoping!

Re:What difference will it make? (1)

mhyclak (35694) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124350)

I don't think it's really that difficult to integrate into mutt. You just source the gpg.rc file that comes with the distribution in your .muttrc and voila, it just works. I've customized my muttrc a bit even to sign+encrypt to people who's keys I know I have, and just sign everything else. The "Well no one else does it, so it's pointless for me to do it" attitude will never help get widespread use. I say use it every day, all the time, and maybe your family and friends will get sick of getting strangely formatted messages and ask you to help them set things up on their end! This has got to be a team effort.

Encryption Crackdown? (4, Interesting)

flipflapflopflup (311459) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124134)

Maybe a smells a bit of conspiracy-theory, but this [theregister.co.uk] article at The Register opens the floor to the idea that NIA's decision isn't entirely due to commercial factors, and in fact looks a bit "fishy".

Quite an interesting point - why would they give up on such a good product like this? And who could gain from them giving up a product like this?

Re:Encryption Crackdown? (1)

Mr.Intel (165870) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124414)

Heh. I submitted that article yesterday afternoon as the story. It think it is a lot more interesting than the nwfusion one even if it is lite on facts. NAI's homepage has absolutely zero on this development. Even the PGP product page is blatently small on details. PGP had the potential to revolutionize e-mail and digital signatures as a whole. Too bad corporate America drove another fine product into the ground again.

Better deal? (2)

Mattygfunk (517948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124145)

NAI is no longer actively trying to sell the product lines, she said, because it was unable to find a buyer who made an appealing enough offer.

If they arn't going to activly try and sell the product, how is this a better deal than taking the less appealing offer?

Re:Better deal? (1)

Xilman (191715) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124284)

Read further down. NAI want to ensure that anyone who does buy it, doesn't lock them (NAI) out of future developments because PGP technology is used in other NAI products.

Selling to someone who goes on to screw your other products is markedly worse than maintaining the status quo.

Paul

PGP app user interface (3, Interesting)

throwaway18 (521472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124155)

I'v been an ocassional user of PGP for year, first the DOS client then GPG on linux.

A friend of mine tried to use the freeware NA windows version. Hes a typical windows user and won't read instructions. After giving him a five minute talk saying "Other people use you public key to write messages to you, only you can read the message with your private key etc". Days later I call in at his house and he had not managed to use it. The user interface was horrible. Despite having used command line PGP for user and having a quick look at the help I couldn't find his keyring or work out how to use it from a quick look at the menus.

I can't imagine what the staff working on PGP were doing, certainly not useability

There were three background processes running on his already unstable win98 machine poping up box's demanding he type in his details and register. I think he reinstalled windows in the end. People who use PGP are gneerally a bit paranoid, annoying them by trying to make tem register seems pointless.

To be secure you _must_ RTFM (2)

SomethingOrOther (521702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124615)


Hes a typical windows user and won't read instructions.

That is a bit like giving someone keys to your house and not showing them how the funny lock works

For him to send a plaintext message that he thought was encrypted (because he didn't RTFM properly) could have been disasterous. In the same way that your friend not locking your door properly ('cos he didn't know how) could be disasterous

The real pity of this (2, Troll)

jht (5006) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124164)

PGP Desktop is a well-integrated application that has a nice file protection app (PGP disk), makes PGP signing your mail a lot easier (it integrates to most e-mail clients I've used), has a good IPSec VPN component, and runs on Mac and Windows (1 more platform than most products do, though there's no Linux desktop version). NAI never did a very good job of selling the product, though - it was always one of those "semi-orphan" packages. NAI couldn't figure out if it was meant to be a business package or a home use package, and pricing was never set in stone.

Ironically, it's probably an easier sell now than it's ever been, given that organizations are finally getting a little more security-conscious.

GPG is probably the best hope for a cross-platform replacement, but there's still a need for better snazzy front-ends on most platforms (I'm using it on MacOS X) to help Joe Average, and there's no easy PGP VPN or PGP Disk equivalent.

NAI - if anyone's listening, why not re-open the PGP codebase and let the marketplace solve the problem? Nobody wants to buy it, you don't want to sell it, so give it away!

Email Integration with GnuPG (5, Informative)

Dimwit (36756) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124167)

First, some kudos to the GnuPG team. I think this is one example of free software really taking over a given market. I only know of one person who uses the commercial version of PGP, and that's because his job requires it. Everyone else I know uses GPG.

Now:

For those of you lucky enough to be using MacOS X (go ahead a flame me - I've been using Unix for ten years, and MacOS X rox my sox), just grab a copy of GnuPG from Fink [sf.net] and install GnuPG.

After that, grab a copy of PGPMail [sente.ch] from Sente, and use the easy, one-drag install. It's still in beta, but it's damn nice integration.

For reference, I'm running MacOS X 10.1.3. When I send an email to someone whose public key is in my keyring, I just click the button "Encrypt" before I click send. Voila. When I receive something encrypted, I have the option of having it automatically decrypt, or I just click "decrypt" in the toolbar. Very nice.

Re:Email Integration with GnuPG (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124203)

First, some kudos to the GnuPG team

You karma-whoring creep!

Re:Email Integration with GnuPG (2, Informative)

cmason (53054) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124296)

The email client Mulberry also has the ability to automatically encrypt, sign and decrypt, and has for some time now.

Check it out at http://www.cyrusoft.com/mulberry/ [cyrusoft.com] . It is payware, but it's a damn nice email client. Works on Windows, Mac, MacOS X, Linux, and, I believe, Solaris.

-c

Re:Email Integration with GnuPG (3, Interesting)

Random Walk (252043) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124648)

Sylpheed [good-day.net] has good support for GnuPG, and is my favourite MUA on Linux.

The drawback is: I would like very much like to use the same e-mail client on Linux and Windows, but sylpheed is only theoretically cross-platform. On ftp.gnupg.org, there is a w32 build of sylpheed 0.4.60 which is buggy like hell, and I have no idea how it was compiled (otherwise I would rebuild a newer version).

Fatal Mistakes.... (3, Interesting)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124180)

Network Associates made a fatal mistake in my opinion, that singularly was to belive people are smart enough to ACTUALLY KNOW they need encryption.

People in general, Im not talking slashot techno geeks. Have NO clue WHATSOEVER that information can be snatched from the net. I have told people they have mail bouncing only to see hen freak and become accusitory , HOW do You KNOW ?? You mean You could READ IT ? Blah Blah Blah, I look at em and say yeah but to bwe honest I could give a crap less what you write and to who. hat usually tones em down a notch.

BUT Back to the point, If someone dosent KNOW there is a NEED then there is NO market for the product , If people dont buy it because they dont know there is a need can you blame em ? If someone tried to sell you say a under the desk testicle shield for radiological effects from monitor transmission would you buy it ? a few would , but most no , WHY ? Becaues if here is no problem, the product COMPLETLEY loses its percieved value.

Now, that said they are in a bad market to try and pitch the inherent Insecurity of networks, being Network Associates and all...

Re:Fatal Mistakes.... (1)

Bloody Bastard (562228) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124249)

People just don't know posting emails is almost like posting a letter in a transparent envelop... everybody from your neighboor to the postman may read it, if they want to.

Re:Fatal Mistakes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124417)

People in general, Im not talking slashot techno geeks. Have NO clue WHATSOEVER that information can be snatched from the net.

Most people I've talked to know this, they just don't understand that encryption can stop it. "I'm not sending my CCN over the internet." "But, it's https..."

Re:Fatal Mistakes.... (2)

Pfhreakaz0id (82141) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124418)

I tell my wife this all the time when she writes something not too smart from her work email (like bitching about her boss). Forget packet sniffing, If you think your sysadmin never gets bored and starts reading people's mail, you have much better faith in human nature than I do. I KNOW a sysadmin at a former company read mail. I caught him doing it.

Encryption and open source (5, Interesting)

pinkUZI (515787) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124184)

Encryption is one of those things that goes really well with open source. PGP started out as Philip Zimmermann [philzimmermann.com] 's free and open project which he released with a written warning [philzimmermann.com] against software that locked away its source code and algorithms. This makes it a little difficult to go back to closed source and proprietary encryption methods. The internet community's love affair with PGP was broken when Phil quit working with Network Associates. The trust wasn't with PGP alone, it was with Phil heading up PGP's development that drew the trust of us all.
So, its not too surprising that Network Associates is having a little trouble trying to pawn off a product that has no market.

Exit PGP, enter GnuPG.

Smartcard support (4, Informative)

nakhla (68363) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124189)

One of the coolest things about the latest version of PGP (Corporate Desktop, I believe) is its support for smartcards. I have a Rainbow iKey, but it's pretty much useless for personal use because I don't have a certificate compatible with the device. With the newest version of PGP I could store PGP certs/keys on my iKey. It would be great if this kind of support was built into GnuPG. I'd LOVE to be able to use my iKey for PGP on Linux or for token-based authentication

Wow, useful information on Slashdot (2, Interesting)

ShavenYak (252902) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124208)

I work for a small HMO, and we are one of the insurance options for Federal Government employees in our state. *All* data that goes back and forth between us and the Feds is supposed to be encrypted with PGP. They even specify which PGP version we are supposed to use.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. I wonder if they will consider using GPG eventually?

Encryption and the masses (5, Insightful)

EschewObfuscation (146674) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124230)

There are, IMHO, two things that keep the average email user from using encryption:

First, it has to be absolutely transparent. It can't put more of an overhead on a standard email send-and-receive than already exists. Key management would have to become at least as easy as address book management (say, having addresses and keys automatically integrated into your keyring). While this would present a security hole, most users aren't going to want to go and verify keys. They're also not going to want to type their password every time they send an email. Most users of apps like Outlook just store their passwords on their PCs anyway, because they can't be bothered logging in once per session (ever deal with someone who didn't remember their password because they never type it in anymore?). IIRC, PGP had several of these features, but with some apps you still had to encrypt to the clipboard and then paste the encrypted message back into your document.

Second, to even get people to do this minimum, and to demand it in products, they have to see the need for it. Phil put it best, I think, when he drew an analogy in the docs for PGP. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "So you're not saying anything illegal. What would you think if the government outlawed envelopes, and all mail had to be sent on postcards?

Most people don't believe how easy it is to read email, because they have no idea how to go about it. Instead, they shrug and say that they don't care. If instead you ask them how they'd feel about having all of their corporate correspondence and private letters going out on postcards, they'd think twice, and (hopefully) bite the bullet and start using something like PGP. There can be a huge market for applications like PGP, but it has to be sold to people with the right message, and it has to, even at the expense of some security (and yes, I realize the implications of that, and know the argument that no security is better than flawed security), be easy to use.

Re:Encryption and the masses (1)

hany (3601) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124445)

Either masses realy want security or they do not.

In the first case (they want security/privacy/...) they have to learn something. Without some knowlegge and good usage habits encryption is meaningless exercise/overhead (at least for them, but maybe also obstacles for those who care).

And in second case (they do not wont it) they have what they wanted: easy, careless life with all the consequences.

But maybe we can live even with poorly used encryption on massive scale - all we need is just "do not trust that key" and "do not trust that key signer" by default and be aware of warnings from encryption backend (i.e. assumption "it is encrypted/signed" should be clearly distinguished from "it is encrypted/signed by TRUSTED entity").

Re:Encryption and the masses (2)

EschewObfuscation (146674) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124510)

What I'm saying, though (and you're right)
is that it would take a campaign in the office
along the lines of "You know, every 17 year old
intern we have working in IT can read every email
you send if you don't use encryption" or "Your
bounced message to Mr Smith dealing with your
weekend in the country ended up in my account.
Maybe you got his address wrong?"

Maybe that's a little too in-your-face
(and, depending on the company, might get people
fired), but it will bring the subject home to people
in a way they can understand.
It's better than explaining about packet sniffing
and other things that make people's eyes glaze
over (like Carnivore).

Scare people with a dose of reality. Make it easy
to use. They'll begin to understand, and start
using encryption. After that, they'll be more
ready to adopt stronger techniques.

pgp and key lengths (3, Interesting)

cluge (114877) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124236)

Maybe CAI didn't want to keep improving the product. DJB's [cr.yp.to] crypto paper and methodology shows that any key less than 1024 can be "easily" cracked. CAI would have had some more work to do on their product (just as I'm sure the GNUPG team is reconsidering the approaches they are using).

Finding the people to verify PGP is secure and proving that any new method of encryption is secure takes money, and since many people still consider zipping a file up with a password as "strong encryption" there was no market for it.

To think, not to long ago the US govt. was complaining that the world would end if we all had encryption. As it turns out, few cared enough to use it.

Re:pgp and key lengths (1)

Col. Panic (90528) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124479)

CAI would have had some more work to do on their product

I doubt it - I am using an older commercial version (6.5.2) and it will handle RSA keys up to 2048 bit and Diffie/Hellman up to 4096 (DH2048 is the default).

Bollocks! Key lengths not a problem (2)

SomethingOrOther (521702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124556)


shows that any key less than 1024 can be "easily" cracked.

eh?
Yes some weeknesses have recently been discoverd in the RSA algoritham meaning that 1024 bit keys are less secure than people thought. HOWEVER PGP defaults to a 2048 bit Diffie Hellman (sp?) key.

Not only that but PGP will happly accept DH keys up to 4096 bits (and RSA keys to 2048 bits if you are set on using RSA), just by changing the defaults!

I think your comment is missleading. Standard PGP keysizes are secure (and should remain secure for many more years) but uping the keysizes can be done very easily!

NAI Another Commodore? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124238)

Remember how Commodore's incompetence helped kill the Amiga? Well I,
personally, don't see much difference between that and what NAI has done
to the companies/products is bought/merged.

Where I work we use McAfee VirusScan and the Gauntlet firewall. At home,
personal use only, I use PGP. (Good ol' 2.6.) Since NAI raised its ugly
head:

. Working with McAfee has become more difficult in nearly
every respect, in my experience.

. The Gauntlet firewall product has become so bad, particularly
the support, that we gave up on it. (We're still using it. We just
haven't bothered with (non-)support contracts or "upgrading.") I
used to love that product :-(. And TIS used to be a pretty good
company to work with.

. When I tried to license PGP for business use, not only did
NAI not have a Unix version for sale, they had no mechanism whereby
I could license the "open source" version for business use. Think
of it: basically free money for them. They had to do no more than
charge me. No media. No downloads. No support. Just me saying to
them "Here! Take some money." The concept was utterly beyond
them.

So the PGP product is now dead. Imagine that. They've sold Gauntlet to
Secure Computing Corp. God knows what the status of the McAfee product
line is.

In summary: it's my opinion that NAI has done those products, not to
mention their (ex-)customers no favours. Needless to say: NAI is not one
of my favourite companies.

Re:NAI Another Commodore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124427)

The Gauntlet firewall product has become so bad, particularly the support, that we gave up on it. (We're still using it. We just haven't bothered with (non-)support contracts or "upgrading.") I used to love that product :-(. And TIS used to be a pretty good company to work with.

The staff sounds like they're pretty happy to hear they were bought by a security company like Secure Computing though. It could have been worse.. look at what happened to poor Raptor.. err.. Symantec Enterprise Firewall. hehe.

Encrypted Volumes (1)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124257)

I currently use PGPDrive volumes, does anybody know of one that is better? With PGPDrive volumes I can defrag, mount and unmount and transfer to other systems too, nice integration.

pgp and the NSA (1)

gruntvald (22203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124262)

There was some short news preview (either for a book or an upcoming show) on fox news yesterday, that I only caught in passing, about the use of technology by terrorist groups. They mentioned in passing that the NSA had cracked pgp 2 years ago. This was news to me.

Re:pgp and the NSA (2)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124409)

A check of the foxnews.com and of the Google newgroup archives mentions nothing about that. Do you have anything more specific to add which we could use to nail down the specifics?

THE NSA CRACKED PGP!!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124424)

any folow-ups on this?

Does GnuPG has VPN support? (2)

Oniros (53181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124326)

We mostly use PGP for VPN access at work, when will GPG have such feature (if ever) ?

Re:Does GnuPG has VPN support? (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124403)

That was part of the problem with NAI. They integrated too much together on the desktop suite. You had the VPN client (ipsec based), PGP client for encrypting mail and files, PGPDisk for creating what is basically just a loopback encrypting disk image that looks like a drive to users, the PGP desktop firewall software, the PGP desktop IDS software bundled with that firewall, etc.

GPG is just the equivalent of the mail and file encrypting tool that was part of the PGP Desktop package. It has nothing to do with VPN access, firewall software, etc.

Re:Does GnuPG has VPN support? (2, Insightful)

Skorpion (88485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124526)

I don't see why it should. Gnu Privacy Guard is a program that talks OpenPGP (RFC 2440). A OpenSource/Free VPN solution is for example FreeS/Wan [freeswan.org] . Those are different things ad selling them under one brand, while business-wise feasible, is like mixing aplles and oranges.

Gauntlet on the other hand... (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124386)

On the other hand, the Gauntlet firewall which used to be under the PGP division did find a buyer thankfully. Secure Computing acquired it and IIRC the support people. Now, whether they bought it just to strip the proxy technology from it and integrate it into Sidewinder (x86 based) or if they plan on continuing to develop the Solaris and HP-UX based Gauntlet itself has yet to be seen. As for PGP, like people said, use GnuPGP. Lately PGP has seemed like it turned down a dark path of distrust. I can't ensure that what I've encrypted with the latest versions are actually secure because I don't know what impact 9/11 has had on this proprietary closed source piece of software and any backdoors it may contain.

How much is NA asking anyhow? (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124394)

Perhaps the EFF should buy them and make PGP opensouce/freeware/shareware or whatever, just so there's something out there that the common computing schmuck can rely on in the future.

First "Zimmerman is a terrorist" post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124430)

. . . for people who need cheap, reliable encryption.
Like al Quaeda?

Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124437)

It's a good thing that there are still products like GnuPG and others out there for people who need cheap, reliable encryption.

Yeah, because if NA had a monopoly on encryption they'd definately still be dissolving that business.

The windows interface rocked! (2)

simpleguy (5686) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124452)

I loved NAI's PGP because it made things so easy!

For instance, if I have a truckload of files to decrypt, it goes as follows.

Select Files > Right Click > PGP > Decrypt > Input passphrase and voila!

Cooler even is that it preserves the original filename after decrypting.

Its always an annoyance to decrypt multiple files with gnupg on linux. Does anyone here know how to implement a passphrase caching mechanism so that I do not have to type that bloody lengthy passphrase everytime? I know this might be a security risk but hey, my home system is not networked. To reduce the risk of people doing stupid things, how about having to edit the source and modify something before the passphrase caching works? I am ready to do that. I am sure most seasoned gnupg users would find that useful too.

Also, how do you preserve the original filename?

Hint: to see the original filename use --list-packets with gnupg.

Simpleguy

Use biometrics NOT passwords and encryption (2)

crovira (10242) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124468)

Security schemes based on what you know (passwords) or what you can calculate (public/private key encryption) are fundamentally flawed.

Security based on what you are (biometrics) is much more reliable and can range from voice recognition over a 3kHz phone line to DNA scans. The more you need to KNOW, the deeper (but not necessarily the more invasive,) the source. The more you need to be sure, the more biometric signatures you can use to corroberate a message.

Use a pair of biometric keys to encrypt/decrypt using the same algorithms as public key and you've got some underivable security. (The keys don't have to be primes.)

As the Beatles sang all those years ago "There's nothing you know that can't be known." So much for passwords.

And remember, encryption calculations are cumulative. Once you've worked out all 128-bit factors, cracking a code you've never seen before just becomes a table look up. (First rule of performance optimization: NEVER do anything TWICE. You can't buy a second but you can rent one if you use cold hard cache.)

And the price of storage falls every month and the number of factors calculated grows every second. (Don't think the NSA hasn't figured that out yet.)

Biometrics are not revocable (3, Informative)

petej (36394) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124602)

Suppose someone finds an exploit in the device that does your retinal scan. Your admins must now deny your retinal scan credentials, and you have to switch to the other eye (presuming you have a spare). If that credential is compromised as well, you're completely out-of-luck.

With a passphrase-based system, by contrast, you can just change your passphrase as needed.

I'll buy it (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124499)

For one dollar!

Hopefully it would come with at least one aeron chair.

mmm. Aeron chair...

Danger Will Robinson! Danger! (2, Interesting)

BurritoWarrior (90481) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124521)

Part of the issue with widespread adoption of PGP isyou can't deploy it in a corporate environment. Imagine one disgruntled employee who encrypts a bunch of mission critical files, takes his keys, and goes home (resigns).

Yeah, we will su his a$$! Well, in the meantime, you are SOL and out of business for all intents and purposes.

PGP is great for individual use. It is a far too risky for corporate use.

Re:Danger Will Robinson! Danger! (2, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124663)

Erm - how is that different to the disgruntled employee that just deletes the files instead? You just restore from backup.

If you didn't have backups of your "business critical" data, you shouldn't be in business anyway.

PgpAPI!? (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124535)

If anyone else out there has gotten a chance to use the PGP API, it's simply a beauituful thing for adding crypto to your application. I don't think GnuPG has anything near what PGP had as far as an API (their motto: "Use the command line program as a base for other things!", yeh, real usefull for in-memory encryption)

It sucks to see that go. GnuPG may be free, but the source was available for PGP, and the API was just fantastic.

Reliable ? (1)

japhering (564929) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124594)

Only reliable, when care is taken to maintain system security. Let us not forget the pgp virus
created by the Chinese Government, which simply sends them all your key rings........

Tech economy (1, Interesting)

wizman (116087) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124625)

You know, I'm a huge believer in open source, but I'm starting to loose faith.

We always cry that OS software is the way to go, and greedy bastards who charge for software are evil.

Well, look at the economy. Look at the number of out-of-work techies out there mowing lawns and flipping burgers to stay afloat. I wonder how many of them would have jobs if there was less open source software in existance. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?

NAI didn't sell all of PGP (5, Informative)

Rahtok (527483) | more than 12 years ago | (#3124676)

Guys, everybody here is missing what really happened here. About a year and a half ago, NAI separated the command line product from the GUI desktop product. NAI discovered that people will pay a large chunk of change for scriptable, command line stuff, and that they almost had to give away the GUI version. When they dissolved the business unit last October, they decided to KEEP the command line version [the McAfee biz unit sells it now, for the same large chunk of $$$] but were trying to sell off the GUI version. Now, riddle me this, riddle me that, how do you sell the GUI version to another company when the command line version you're keeping USES THE SAME CODE?! That's why NAI couldn't sell it -- no company wanted to pick up a product that NAI was going to keep the core product to. I know because I worked for NAI in the PGP division.

It all is a big shame too. The last version, 7.1, was cool. It was stable, had an IPSEC client that could talk to pretty much any VPN gateway out there in addition to creating peer to peer IPSEC tunnels with other PGP clients as well. A mini firewall / IDS rounded it out. Frankly, companies just aren't paranoid enough to require that level of encryption yet. And until that happens, no commercial product is likely to succeed in this arena.

Freeware version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3124706)

The freeware version on the PGP International site goes up to 7.03: downloads here [pgpi.org] . This site is not owned by NAI so it shouldn't be affected by this decision.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...