Comments for Security DJ

Comment on Increased security for Yubikey by John Edward

John Edward — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:09:44 +0000

Agree! Yubikey has a lot of problems. It seems to be a cheap compromise and not good at anything particular. But an interesting common denominator.

By the way, how do you compare it with UmiKey and Swekey?

Thanks

Comment on Fon Security Scenarios by Fredrik Björck

Fredrik Björck — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:56:59 +0000

Hi Rob,
This blog was started in 2009, but the Fon article was written already in 2007. But since so many people wanted to read it, I published it to the blog and made a fictional date for it at the blog. The criticism is still valid since Fon distributed a large number of access points with these flaws, even if newer access points have more security. Best regards /Fredrik

Comment on Fon Security Scenarios by rob

rob — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:23:44 +0000

I’m a bit confused about the status of this post. At the foot of the page it says it was posted 1 Jan 2009; at the top it says “Update Jan 15 2007″. Is the criticism of Fon security still valid as of May 2009?

Apart from this, the report is very helpful, and easy to understand. Thank you.

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by puffy

puffy — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:32:37 +0000

mail service providers are considered article 12, and they store the information, what is the difference then?
Google isn’t held liable for the contents of the emails, then TPB shouldn’t be held liable for the “contents” of the torrents.

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by Fredrik Björck

Fredrik Björck — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:49:23 +0000

@ drf Thank you Dr F! /Dr F

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by drf

drf — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:40:04 +0000

Interesting reading indeed. Thank you.

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by Fredrik Björck

Fredrik Björck — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:57:35 +0000

@ Freja Nord Thank you Freja. /Fredrik

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by Freja Nord

Freja Nord — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:12:04 +0000

Very interesting, greats arguments!
This text should be used in the appeal, might give the court some perspective…

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by Fredrik Björck

Fredrik Björck — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:13:14 +0000

Hi Marcus, thank you for commenting. Yes, the directive and its applicability was discussed. But I NEVER dreamt that the court would state that they view the Pirate Bay a provider of an information society service, so that the directive IS indeed applicable. Only to, in the next sentence, discard article 12, without any further discussion or analysis. I think this shows that the expertise of the court is copyright law and immaterial rights, rather than the area covered by the European directive (information communication services). It is as easy as this: IF the conditions of article 12 are fulfilled, they should not be held liable even if all the other things described in the verdict is true. /Fredrik

Comment on Why the Pirate Bay verdict may be incorrect by Marcus Nilsson

Marcus Nilsson — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:05:05 +0000

This law and how it could apply was discussed already in irc channels during the trial.. But as it was a highly political/commercial drama i dont know if the law really mattered here.