SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:06PM
from the Wbuaal-qbrf-abg-rira-haqrefgnaq-EBG13 dept.
from the Wbuaal-qbrf-abg-rira-haqrefgnaq-EBG13 dept.
This paper presents the results of a laboratory study involving Mailvelope, a modern PGP client that integrates tightly with existing webmail providers. In our study, we brought in pairs of participants and had them attempt to use Mailvelope to communicate with each other. Our results shown that more than a decade and a half after "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt," modern PGP tools are still unusable for the masses. We finish with a discussion of pain points encountered using Mailvelope, and discuss what might be done to address them in future PGP systems.
The PDF of the study can be found here.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 69 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..."
-- Professor in the UCB physics department
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:03PM
Would your idiot after setting everything up know not to put sensitive information in the subject line? What about verifying the fingerprint of a key?
There is no technical fix for stupid. None of the headers are encrypted. Not all headers originate with the sender. (There are more advanced encryption tools that that wrap your email in a new email with generic headers - but this is even less common.).
Verification is something the client does. Messages show up in your inbox already verified, and decrypted if the public key of the sender is valid. Its automated. Even fetching the sender's public key is automated.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.