←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 2 comments | 26 Jul 22 03:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.801s | source
Show context
Gh0stRAT ◴[26 Jul 22 06:26 UTC] No.32235028[source]▶
I'm completely missing how his example of a Word document that can only be opened by approved users on approved hardware within the corporation is supposed to be a bad thing.

Honestly, that sounds pretty fantastic. I've been using 3rd party tools/extensions to do this sort of thing in corporate and government environments for years, but having the attestation go all the way down to the hardware level is a big value-add, especially with so much ransomware/spyware/extortion/espionage going on these days.

Can someone please explain to me how the author might see this level of security as a bad thing?

replies(18): >>32235120 #>>32235149 #>>32235164 #>>32235474 #>>32235546 #>>32235795 #>>32235875 #>>32236359 #>>32236639 #>>32236668 #>>32236673 #>>32236797 #>>32236864 #>>32237450 #>>32237580 #>>32238544 #>>32238583 #>>32240740 #
1. POPOSYS ◴[26 Jul 22 07:43 UTC] No.32235474[source]▶
What tools are you using today to realize this scenario? Thanks!
replies(1): >>32240479 #
2. Gh0stRAT ◴[26 Jul 22 16:32 UTC] No.32240479[source]▶
The plugin my current employer uses is so well integrated that I don't even know its name. (I suspect it may be developed internally)

At a past job, we used Entrust [0] and I'm aware of Virtru [1] as well.

Edit: I forgot about Sharepoint, which also sort-of fills the ACL document-sharing niche. (though I'm less certain about whether it uses encryption to enforce its access policies)

[0] https://www.entrust.com/ [1] https://www.virtru.com/