Steve has a lot of hate coming from the traditional hacker community, some of it for good reasons. He got started in all this trying to defend himself from some attacks, and definitely made some noob mistakes. In particular, he made the mistake of lumping in penetration testers (white hats) with criminal hackers (black hats). That generated a lot of hate from the pen tester community and many labled him a fraud and never looked back. His biggest offense seems to be that he is not of, and does not participate in, the traditional hacker/pen tester community. I think it is very telling that none of his detractors are actually point out problems in his proposal for SQRL. They are relying entirely on "we all know Steve Gibson is a fraud" arguments.

Start using LastPass. Pick a single, strong password for it and then let it auto generate and remember all your passwords. It is a robust and secure system and you are not entrusting your secrets to anyone - all the encryption is done client-side and LastPass themselves are only storing ciphertext.

A full security analysis and examination of its capabilities can be found here:

http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm#256

The reference is this blog posting over at Foreign Policy which was posted back in March: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/5630 The test was of a sub-orbital kill vehicle intercepting a sub-orbital target, both launched from ballistic missiles. There was no orbital debris generated and a satellite was not destroyed. This can be verified by looking at NASA's Orbital debris Quarterly Reports as well as the satellite catalog on Space Track: http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/newsletter.html http://www.space-track.org/perl/login.pl However, because the same technology can be used for both hit-to-kill missile defense and hit-to-kill ASATs, the test can be seen as another test of China's ASAT capability, in the same way as the destruction of USA 193 (a satellite) by the US Aegis missile defense system

Wow - this has to be in the Top 10 Worst Article Summaries ever on Slashdot. And why is the link pointing to a CSMonitor dupe instead of the original story at Space.com which has the best coverage? Most of the other commenters already pointed out the problems (it's not a GPS satellite, the libration points are not Earth-Moon Lagrange points, etc), so I will just point everyone to the real articles with real facts on this story: http://www.space.com/news/out-of-control-satellite-threatens-others-sn-100503.html http://www.space.com/news/zombiesat-galaxy-15-shutdown-fails-sn-100505.html

On Episode 133 of Security Now, Steve Gibson does a test to try and calculate the overhead of Truecrypt and comes up with a number in the single percents. The test was to defrag an image with whole disk encryption and without and compare the times.

Transcript:

http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-133.htm