A secure device solution is what I want too, but before it can be effective, an open standard for authentication needs to be established. An open authentication standard that allows authentication to be securily proxied to the dedicated security device (or whatever security manager you want to use). Without a secure authentication protocol, the authentication material will still be vulnerable to a corrupt application getting at the authentication material.

You could go as far as proxying the entire secure connection through the security device, but I would still securily tunnel the authentication protocol inside the encrypted TLS/SSL connection rather than combine them in a pure TLS/SSL solution for various reasons.

Data security is important to Google's business. Internal employees are more likely to be loyal and trusted. Trusted employees provide better security for Google and their customer data.

A bigger problem is securing our username and password that we use to login over the SSL connection.

The username and password are vulnerable because:
1) They are typically exposed on the same system that handles the connection, which makes them vulernalble to trojans, key loggers, hackers, etc.
2) They must be managed by humans or vulnerable password managers.
3) They don't authenticate the server, making the user completely reliable on SSL certificate mechanism for authenticating the server, which as we are aware has a number of weaknesses including most browsers allow a user to ignore a bad certificate and bad certifcates can be trusted through accident or malicious intent.

Having a well designed protocol underneath SSL to authenticate between the client and the server that:
1) is key based
2) has bidirectional authentciation
3) allows authentication to be done on an isolated computer or dedicated security device

Would go a long ways towards improving security.

Maybe there is an existing protocol that provides some of this, but I don't believe OAuth on its own does.

Don't forget Bill Clinton and the Democratic controlled congress killed funding for the successful IFR nuclear reactor 3 years before it would have been completed. The IFR uses most of the energy content of Uranium and is orders of magnitude more efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

From http://www.sustainablenuclear....
The one-sided fight was on. The President's budget, submitted to Congress, contained no funding for the IFR. There is no funding source to tide over a National Laboratory when funding is cut offthe program is dead and that is that. Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives were nothing new, and in themselves they were not especially alarming to the IFR people. During the previous ten years the votes on IFR funding in the House had always been close, and although a majority of the Democrats always opposed, enough of them were in support that IFR development squeaked through each year. The Senate votes on the IFR, sometimes with Republican majorities, sometimes without, as a rule went easier. But this was a very different year: the Administration had gone from weak support of the IFR program to active opposition.

Please explain how social security is not a Ponzi scheme?

The first generation that received social security was paid by the working generation (2nd generation). The 2nd generation is paid for by the 3rd generation and so on. It only works as long as the next generation (new investors) grows fast enough to pay for the current generation. This is classic Ponzi scheme, the first investers get paid off right away (and well), and the second investers pay for them and they get paid less well, and then the 3rd generation get paid even less, and so on, and you can only sustain it if you get more investors or you actually generate income. Unless I am mistaken, the only income social security gets is from the current investors.

Social security now takes more than it gives: http://business.time.com/2012/...

Bill Clinton announces cancelation of nuclear power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Bill Clinton says wind solar are already cheaper than nuclear:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

And Democrats are quick to paint distorted pictures of Republicans, because it serves their political gain.

I doubt there is a big difference between the compassion of Republicans versus Democrats. The evidence that Republicans have compassion is easy to find, look at their donations to charity. Painting a picture that Republicans promote ideas that are in direct conflict with religious ideas of caring is a misunderstanding on your part. On a whole Republicans believe government should be limited, and should not promote social causes good or bad as a matter or principle, and this has little to do with their level of compassion. I submit that you fall in the same bit of crowd driven thinking we all do, you listen to those who align with the views you want to believe (a little like those religious people you call nutty) ignoring the actual evidence to the contrary because it does not fit with your belief.

The alternative explanation that the universe always was or just formed from nothing is not much better than your mother's answer.

I mistakenly modded you down. Not sure how to undo it without replying.

Elaine Huguenin did not want to take pictures at a same sex marriage because she did not believe in it. Vanessa Wilcock found another photographer, but decided to file a lawsuit, and won her case, and Elane Photography was ordered to pay $6637. Who is acting like the $%##? What about respect for others beliefs? Does that only apply to non-Christians now? Stupid cases like this is why Arizona feels the need to make bills like this.

http://winteryknight.wordpress...

Hide the encryption algorithm used in the inner encrypted data and it will be even more difficult to find a correlation.

My understanding is that the attacker can't alter the secret, but they control the URL of the request, and try to alter so that as the URL more closely matches the secret, the overall request and response compresses to a smaller size. So there is nothing really of value until the attacker gets the secret, since the attacker is the one creating the request (i.e. the URL).

No it does not, because you can't use it again. At best you call it a one time secret.

For a given https connection, each side can prove to the other that they have knowledge of the authentication cookie, without sending their part of that knowledge. There are probably many ways this could be done, and I am not going to pretend I know the best way, but here is one way. Each side sends random challenges as part of the connection establishment. Each side receives the challenge and encrypts it using the public key generated at the time of the authentication cookie establishment. The challenge response is embedded in the first http request and response. There is some overhead and latency, but next to the TLS/SSL, this is minor, and also reusing connection becomes more important, or other ideas like Google's Quic protocol make even more sense.

It should be security 101 that you never send your secrets, just send proof that you know the secret.