back to article Google Project Zero boss: Blockchain won’t solve your security woes – but partying just might

Parisa Tabriz, a director of engineering at Google and head of the web giant's Project Zero bug-hunting squad, today opened this year's Black Hat USA conference with a reminder that partying is key to securing software. There’s more to it than that, of course: clear goals and targets have to be set, management and staff have …

Anonymous Coward

'People in the middle snoop'

The lack of awareness / irony in Big-Tech is amazing.. Google execs act like the good guys / heroes. Meanwhile the Google Gatekeeper noose tightens. Children born today will grow up in a world where decisions are taken by AI & Big-Tech in ways they have no control over. Anyone thinking the future is going to be glorious for all, just isn't paying enough attention...

13
0

Re: 'People in the middle snoop'

Snooping is Google's business, they need to know about you to sell targeted ads. More unsettling is their recent move into censoring content. The old "don't be evil motto" is ironic now.

12
1
Anonymous Coward

censoring content

Bang goes their "Common Carrier" defence for Slander/Libel/Defamation etc then.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'People in the middle snoop'

More unsettling is their recent move into censoring content. The old "don't be evil motto" is ironic now.

They are at least to some extent required by law to censor. Even in the USA where the Communications Decency Act was recently ammended.

But yes, snooping is their business. The irony is that whilst they're working to ensure that data in transit is secure so that non-friendly actors cannot interfere with or disadvantage Web users, Google's entire business model is, in its purest essence, to become that non-friendly actor without anyone realising it. Their "free" services come at a price, and someone has to pay, and Google want them to pay more. Guess who that is.

3
1

Re: 'People in the middle snoop'

DMCA probably causes more censorship due to draconian implementation.

Although the OP suggests and complains that all standards come from "big IT". Are there any standards at all that survive outside the sponsorship or direct ownership of big IT? I don't know any. that's like complaining that only Parliament makes law in the UK.

No matter who or what body is in control accusations of incompetence, hidden agenda's or corruption will always be levelled. Some of these will have a basis in fact, not just politics. What would you like to see?

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'People in the middle snoop'

The thing we all need to see is that the only monopoly that exists is the one we vote for; government.

Big IT is not creating standards that permit competition, Big IT is hell bent on achieving a monopoly position through expanding their walled gardens and is hoping that the politicians don't notice. So far it seems that the only body that hasn't been fooled thus far is, ironically, the unelected European Commission.

As for standards that survive outside of Big IT, you are being very short sighted if you think that there are none. What do you think carries your Web traffic? TCP/IP. What is that traffic? Likely http. How does your email flow around the world? SMTP, IMAP, etc. How does your domain login work on a Windows network? LDAP, Kerberos, implemented either by Windows or SAMBA. What is the system API on top of which Android, Linux, and most software is implemented (unless it's for Windows or MAC/ios)? POSIX.

Big IT has decided that openness is for pansies, and there's billions to be made by providing proprietary over the top services. They're right, and they've made billions. Trouble is that the consumer has paid for that through the cost of goods and services, the sellers of which have to buy advertising on these proprietary platforms to survive in their market places. In this way Google is far from free, it's costing the average wage earner in the UK and everywhere else a lot of money, without the option. That's a monopoly.

Facebook are even worse coz they're having to be very aggressively acquisitive of data to make cash from a very limited and, frankly, piss poor service

4
0
Anonymous Coward

"There are about 320 companies ... that control the online safety of billions of us"

Committee of Public Safety.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Four years to label non HTTPS sites unsecure?

Or they have too much parties, or they really need to motivate people more, say, with better bonuses, or pays, and more days off.

I really hate this kind of neo-medievalism, where serfs are remunerated with a party, I hate stinkin' parties with colleagues. We are not rats you give cheese when we reach the end of the maze.

And does executives celebrate their achievements with parties only? Although I guess their parties are far different....

Also, I'd label not secure any site slinging third party contents like ads, regardless of HTTPS or not.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Four years to label non HTTPS sites unsecure?

I'm not a big fan of parties, either. But then, I know that I'm high-functioning Aspberger's with the usual stupidly-high IQ. The point is, I'm so far out of the norm, I don't count. Parties work well for most people, however, including a significant majority of those it IT. Just not the folks I feel comfortable hanging out with. (Assuming that I'm actually in the mood to be around other people outside of work.)

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Four years to label non HTTPS sites unsecure?

Problem is not a party per se. It's the mandatory work party with people you may not like. Not all of my colleagues are my friends, actually only a few. While there are some with whom I may work well, but I won't spend time with them out of the office for several reasons. Usually, people who like parties like those where they can find the people they like to meet. Unless you're the kind any chance to eat and drink for free is welcome.

Such kind of rewards look to me a cheap way to avoid real ones, by people who believe 'The Circle' is a manual, not a dystopian novel.

0
0

20 something years later...

"Black Hat founder Jeff Moss echoed Tabriz’s calls for a secure-by-default world."

Theo de Raadt said this in the mid-90s

1
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018