Google, Yahoo Partner to Create Encrypted Email System

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Google, Yahoo Partner to Create Encrypted Email System

Rivals Google and Yahoo are pairing up to develop a secured email service by 2015, that could make it impossible for hackers or even the government to read users' messages.

With internet security becoming more and more fragile, Yahoo has announced that it will partner up with its rival Google to develop an encrypted email system by 2015, that should make it almost impossible for hackers or government officials to email messages read without permission. It's said that even the email providers themselves won't be able to decrypt the emails. Google states it has over 42.5 million unique Gmail users, with Yahoo sitting at over 110 million. Yahoo and Google say this encryption tool will be an optional feature that users will have to enable, and it will rely on a version of PGP encryption, which is a long-tested way of scrambling data that has yet to be cracked. It also won't be like traditional webmail services that rely on tech firms in holding passwords and usernames for user accounts, as PGP relies on consumer accounts having their own encryption key stored on their laptops, smartphones, tablets and other devices.

However, before you toggle this on the moment it becomes available, it won't be that easy to use, unfortunately. For starters, you cannot forget your password as there's no "password reset" feature; and users will have to go through several steps using less-than-desirable (read: clunky) software just to send short email messages. Christopher Soghoian, security and privacy researcher at the American Civil Liberties Union claims, "How do you get children to eat their spinach?...PGP is even less tasty than spinach." Soghoian adds that both Google and Yahoo are taking steps to make the technology easier to use for normal users.

In a Black Hat security conference held last week, Yahoo chief information security officer Alex Stamos says that Yahoo has to explain to users how PGP works, and that it isn't the one-stop cure for privacy issues. One example Stamos has given is that while it encrypts the contents of emails, it wont' provide encryption on who sends and receives the messages or the subject line. "We have to make it to clear to people it is not secret you're emailing your priest...But the content of what you're emailing him is secret," Stamos notes.

Possibly the most intriguing aspect of it (aside from protecting emails from hackers) is bandied by Bruce Schneier, longtime cybersecurity researcher and chief technology officer at Co3 Systems, when he said: "What's going to happen when the FBI goes to Google or Yahoo and says, 'I want the email from this guy,' and Google or Yahoo says, 'We can't give it to you?'"

Are you willing to adapt Google and Yahoo's new email system to protect your privacy? Or will this new encryption method just make it easier for people with bad intentions to communicate without being caught?

Source: The Australian

Permalink

Yes it's a tool that will be used by criminals and the like, but it's a sad state of affairs that our Government proved themselves to be so irresponsible and nosy, that such a thing is desired so badly that Google and Yahoo would team up to make it happen.

I won't use it, because I really don't have anything to hide, but I'm glad I have the option.

I give it less than a month before hackers tear it to pieces.

Color me intrigued, especially since I have both a Yahoo Email (My Main) and a Google+ Email (As a Requirement to use Youtube).

I'll keep an eye on this. Maybe I could use this new Yahoogle (I trademarked it) Email as my Main instead...

The Hungry Samurai:
[...] I really don't have anything to hide[...]

Is that so?
If that's the case you can surely post the following things here:
-Your credit card details
-All your usernames and passwords
-Your private photos

Or you know what? Scratch the last one and just give us SSH access to all your files.

Orwell is probably turn in his grave considering how many people share your uneducated opinion. -.-

Tbh, client-to-client (aka OTR) encryption is not a very fresh idea. Any decent mail client can do that today, just in case anyone is unaware. (And most of them use PGP/GPG.)

For example, Thunderbird: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/enigmail/

But I guess it is about the web-app part of their services, so it seems interesting.

The Hungry Samurai:
Yes it's a tool that will be used by criminals and the like, but it's a sad state of affairs that our Government proved themselves to be so irresponsible and nosy, that such a thing is desired so badly that Google and Yahoo would team up to make it happen.

What's sad is, I'm more concerned about the criminals in charge of our country than the ones they're supposedly "protecting" us from. I have nothing in particular to hide from them either, but I would use this on principle simply to give a giant middle finger to the FBI and NSA.

captcha: carry a towel
You know something I don't, Captcha...?

I will use it. I will use it exclusively. I will expect all my correspondents to use it too, if it's easy enough to use. I'd encrypt everything I send with GPG already if I could convince them to do so. Sadly, not everyone is neither-too-old-nor-too-young to use command-line interfaces.

A lot of people say, "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns". This is actually true, whether or not you like the corollaries. (In particular, I personally think that most guns should be criminalized, but of course that's not the point of the discussion.) A similar statement is true of strong encryption, and the corollaries are much less in the favour of the people not being permitted the facility in question. Whereas allowing ordinary citizens to have powerful weapons is one thing, allowing ordinary citizens to conceal their business from everyone else is the point of being a citizen.

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

Queen Michael:
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

A year? My friend, you give them *fair* too little credit.

All the government has to do is spout it's usual Patriot Act-Terrorists propaganda, and Google/Yahoo will be forced to hand over the encryption keys.

008Zulu:
All the government has to do is spout it's usual Patriot Act-Terrorists propaganda, and Google/Yahoo will be forced to hand over the encryption keys.

The thing is that those keys will be on the users computers not their servers, so Google and Yahoo will literally be unable to comply.

OT: I think it's good their doing this, I don't care much for the FBI/NSA even though their criminals the ones I'd be protecting myself from are the real ones which steal etc, encrypting emails would be a good way to help keep my details safe from the real trouble makers.

What stops google and yahoo from scanning your messages as they do now?

Somethingfake:

Queen Michael:
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

A year? My friend, you give them *fair* too little credit.

I'm better off financially than most people, but even I don't want to lose 1,000 quid if I can help it.

I'd certainly use this if it's not some ridiculous scam. Fuck our nosy ass government and all the douchebag hackers for making this bullshit hoop jumping necessary. I hope you all fucking trip and horribly break your legs.

What's sad is, I'm more concerned about the criminals in charge of our country than the ones they're supposedly "protecting" us from. I have nothing in particular to hide from them either, but I would use this on principle simply to give a giant middle finger to the FBI and NSA.

Bingo!

Seems workable. Dark Mail is what im really looking forward to. We need systems like this is place to preserve privacy. Your passwords are not safe, that much is clear, storage encryption and protection in most places is inadequate. If the latest news is to be believed the Russians know pretty much everyone's password.

We need to fix our systems. Our private information NEEDS to be private again. Terrorism is a ghost. A specter of fear made to keep you compliant. It is not a realistic risk to your living standard and freedoms. Governments acting with impunity and limited power is a very real and present danger to everyone. Your government will not always have your best interests in mind. Giving them the tools to know everything about everyone gives them the irresistible temptation to use that information.

The world is not static. Your government is not static. You need to retain enough power and freedom that you can stand up to your government and hold it accountable in a meaningful and realistic way.

Why this is important:


-Whistleblowers: Lavabit was seized by the sweeping powers of the closed, secret US courts. Having encrypted email is a vital part of being able o safely leak vital information. The government should not have the power to completely silence descent from within it's ranks.

-Freedom of the Press: Press stories and investigations need to be kept secure. Without encryption the government can't break all press communication is subject to checks. Those with voice need to be able to hold the government to account and fight it's wishes.

-Freedom of Thought: Privacy is important. It's not impossible that one day your government will want to silence individual voices that oppose it, even in private. Once a government has the power to monitor all of it's citizens communications it goes further down the path to control. The mere ability to do this is a problem. Consciously or not monitoring of this nature DOES bring you closer to a totalitarian state even if it is not being acted on because the capability is there should the will arise.

-Data Harvesting: As we've seen even metadata is important. Over time knowing how communicates with who adds up to webs of interaction. Encrypted communication halts the slow drip of stored data a government had on it's people. This IS ALREADY being stored in vast amounts 'just in case' but what it adds up to is small pieces of a big whole. All data reveals something about a person.

Queen Michael:
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

Somethingfake:
A year? My friend, you give them *fair*(far?) too little credit.

Are you guys/gals seriously comparing this to video game DRM?

PGP encryption hasn't been broken in ~20 years, so I guess you already lose...

How does this work if the person sending the email uses encryption but the receivers don't? I might be willing to give this a try but there is no way my family will. I can't even get them to stop using birthdays as passwords.

Tamayo:
I will use it. I will use it exclusively. I will expect all my correspondents to use it too, if it's easy enough to use. I'd encrypt everything I send with GPG already if I could convince them to do so. Sadly, not everyone is neither-too-old-nor-too-young to use command-line interfaces.

not sure if 24 fits in your timeframe, but i remmeber using command-line interfaces. i will fight tooth and nail for a regular user to never ever ever having to see them again. there is aboslutely no reason to have no GUI in this day and age.

Mr.Tea:

PGP encryption hasn't been broken in ~20 years, so I guess you already lose...

all encryption is a matter of effort. if the gains for breaking it starts exceeding the effort needed to break it - it will be broken. there is no unbreakable encryptions.

RicoADF:
The thing is that those keys will be on the users computers not their servers, so Google and Yahoo will literally be unable to comply.

They would be able to force them to hand over the means by which the keys are generated, so they can generate their own skeleton key.

If Google can't decrypt my mail, how are they supposed to display ads based on the contents of my mail?

Strazdas:

Mr.Tea:

PGP encryption hasn't been broken in ~20 years, so I guess you already lose...

all encryption is a matter of effort. if the gains for breaking it starts exceeding the effort needed to break it - it will be broken. there is no unbreakable encryptions.

Obviously. And I'm not debating that.

What I was objecting to, in their comments, is the vibe of "Huehuehue, games get cracked really quickly so obviously this has no chance of working longer than a year" I was getting.

Strazdas:
all encryption is a matter of effort. if the gains for breaking it starts exceeding the effort needed to break it - it will be broken. there is no unbreakable encryptions.

While this is technically right, in practicality it's wrong.
Yes, RC4 is broken. Yes, some Elliptical Curves have got backdoors. Yes, AES1 sucks, AES2 is highly dubious. Sure, everything can be brute forced, but the timeframe for this gets too big too fast. Sure, if you can wait a few million years to brute force one key, then what you're saying is right. But it's not practicable in the slightest. Mathematically strong crypto algorithms still hold, and will for a while even when (if) quantum computers ever get to be a thing. Look at AES3 for example, and RSA with good key strength. While individual keys CAN be broken, each key needs to be attacked by itself. The algorithms themselves stay strong, and will continue to do so barring significant breakthroughs in mathematics.

Go read a few papers on that topic. Sadly, the only good explanations I heard about this topic and are in video form are all in german, so no gain in linking them here.

Edit: changed out one formulation

If there is a way for the legit user to read his message, there is also a way for the hacker in. There is literally nothing that can't be hacked but is connected to a network where everyone can connect.

Also the government doesn't "brute force" the encryption nor do they have as weak computers as people assume that it would take them years to crack. Especially not the US which invests billions into the army and national security where national security is moving more and more into the virtual world.

TheSniperFan:

The Hungry Samurai:
[...] I really don't have anything to hide[...]

Is that so?
If that's the case you can surely post the following things here:
-Your credit card details
-All your usernames and passwords
-Your private photos

Or you know what? Scratch the last one and just give us SSH access to all your files.

Orwell is probably turn in his grave considering how many people share your uneducated opinion. -.-

Be sensible. He's obviously referring to stuff that goes in email. Do you put such information in YOUR emails? Your statement is lacking in courtesy, and it does not make sense.

Mr.Tea:

Strazdas:

Mr.Tea:

PGP encryption hasn't been broken in ~20 years, so I guess you already lose...

all encryption is a matter of effort. if the gains for breaking it starts exceeding the effort needed to break it - it will be broken. there is no unbreakable encryptions.

Obviously. And I'm not debating that.

What I was objecting to, in their comments, is the vibe of "Huehuehue, games get cracked really quickly so obviously this has no chance of working longer than a year" I was getting.

the vibe i got from his post was "well now that theres a lot of data that the government want behind this encryption people will try to crack it much harder". so i guess we just interpreted his post differently.

Whoracle:

Yes, RC4 is broken. Yes, some Elliptical Curves have got backdoors. Yes, AES1 sucks, AES2 is highly dubious. Sure, everything can be brute forced, but the timeframe for this gets too big too fast. Sure, if you can wait a few million years to brute force one key, then what you're saying is right. But it's not practicable in the slightest. Mathematically strong crypto algorithms still hold, and will for a while even when (if) quantum computers ever get to be a thing. Look at AES3 for example, and RSA with good key strength. While individual keys CAN be broken, each key needs to be attacked by itself. The algorithms themselves stay strong, and will continue to do so barring significant breakthroughs in mathematics.

Go read a few papers on that topic. Sadly, the only good explanations I heard about this topic and are in video form are all in german, so no gain in linking them here.

Edit: changed out one formulation

see, the problem with this is that its going to have plenty of backdoors. after all, you need to send the decryption key with the message or else the recipient would not be able to read it. mathematically strong crypto algorythms can be strng of they are localized without storing dectryption key. this does not work for random email communications. its the same problem as with impossibility to hide who you are sending the email to. the server has to know to do its job, and so the recipient computer has to know how to decrypt it to read the message. this would only be secure in closed networks.

Strazdas:
see, the problem with this is that its going to have plenty of backdoors. after all, you need to send the decryption key with the message or else the recipient would not be able to read it.

Er, no. The whole idea of public-key encryption is that the keys required for encrypting and decrypting a message are different. Granted, most of the public-key cryptosystems currently in use are vulnerable to being cracked via Shor's quantum factoring algorithm, but as far as I know nobody (except maybe the NSA, always except maybe the NSA) has actually built a quantum computer powerful enough to make Shor's algorithm useful. I acknowledge---quantum computers are coming, and sooner than we want them to---but they are not here yet.

However, there do exist public-key cryptosystems that are not vulnerable to quantum factoring.[1] They're just slower and cause huge message blowup, so people don't use them because RSA works just fine for now. RSA is fairly easy to explain, in fact. Here I go. (By the way, I'm trying not to use too many scary mathematical words, so this explanation is still fairly hand-wavy.)

Let p and q be two large primes, say each having about 1000 decimal digits. Define the number n to be the product p*q, and let e be some integer that is more than 2 and less than n and that does not have p or q as a factor. In practice, people either set e=3 or e=65537, for reasons of computational efficiency; let us then accept e=65537. While we are defining values, let k = \eulerphi(n) = (p - 1)*(q - 1).

Now, let m be an integer at least 2 and less than 0.99n[2] The value m will represent the message that is to be encrypted. The encryption c of m is the value c = m^e (mod n).

The reason RSA is useful is that it is very difficult to find inverse e-th powers of arbitrary numbers modulo n, when n is explicitly a composite number. However, if one knows the values p and q, one can calculate the value d such that d*e=1 (modulo k) by using the facts that finding inverses modulo prime numbers like p and q is quite straightforward and that calculating in the system of integers modulo k has a direct and invertible relation[3] to calculating simultaneously in the paired systems of integers modulo p and modulo q.

Once you have that d, you can forget p and q if you want to and just keep d itself as your private key. When you want to decrypt some encrypted text c into a plaintext t, it's simple: t=c^d (mod n). Here we note that decryption is far slower than encryption in RSA; most asymmetric cryptosystems have a similar property.

tl;dr -- if you generate a key pair (PUB, PRI) using your favourite program, and you go to the trouble to keep the value
PRI secret, then anyone who encodes a message with the value PUB will be able to trust that only you will ever be able to read that message.

Where Shor's algorithm defeats RSA is by factoring n into p and q in polynomial (soft quantum cubic, in fact) time in the size of n. Absent that, though, nobody has found usable ways of factoring big numbers like n, or of defeating RSA in any other way.

It was noted in a more recent post that

Whoracle:
Yes, RC4 is broken. (snip) Yes, AES1 sucks, AES2 is highly dubious.

RC4 and AES are symmetric cryptosystems---i.e., the keys for encryption and decryption are exactly the same, unlike in the RSA cryptosystem. RC4 is "broken"; it's possible to read messages encrypted with RC4 without knowing the key for the encryption. AES is not ... theoretically; indeed, AES is an excellent algorithm, in theory. The problem with AES is that it is vulnerable to "side-channel attacks": if you can measure with great precision how much time a computer requires to perform every step in the encryption of a message, then you can figure out what key it is using.

Shor's algorithm is useful against some, but not very many, of the symmetric cryptosystems currently in use. AES is not vulnerable to it, for example. Lots of other symmetric cryptosystems have the side-channel vulnerability, but not all of them, and people are trying to find ones that don't have it. Also, since the vulnerability is a known one, you can write your AES program so that it doesn't expose how long it takes to do each part of its job; generally, however, that means making it about a hundred (!) times slower to run. Finally, dedicated AES chip manufacturers are also aware of this vulnerability, so they make their circuits take constant time irrespective of the keys in use.

In that both the sender and the receiver of a message encoded using a symmetric cryptosystem must know the same key, and thus must have communicated that key between them at some point, it is only that symmetric cryptosystems like AES are hugely faster to calculate than RSA is. (And RSA is fast, amongst asymmetric algorithms. Quantum-factoring-resistant public-key cryptosystems are really, really slow indeed.) Thus, what really happens when Alice sends a message M to Bob in a hybrid system like GnuPG is the following:

1. Alice chooses a completely new random key K for use in the symmetric cryptosystem S. She computes C = S(K, M).
2. Alice encrypts K using Bob's public key E in the asymmetric system A. She computes R = A(E, K).
3. Alice sends *both* values C and R to Bob.
4. Bob uses his private key D in the asymmetric system to recover K from R.
5. Finally, Bob uses K in the symmetric system to recover M from C.

Note in particular that Alice and Bob never actually communicate the raw value K. If the size of a message M is much bigger than the size of a key K, then this scheme works out computationally and practically.

So---the hackers and the spies out there won't reasonably be able to crack our encryption until they build quantum computers. What they will be able to do is beat the security on our operating systems so they can tunnel in and read our messages before we encrypt them. Alternately, they will steal our keys because we don't keep the private keys sufficiently secure. (Key management is a whole 'nother problem, and a harder one.) The cryptographic primitives themselves are still valid, though, and they're getting stronger, not weaker.

Edit: changed one (admittedly essential) letter in line 5 of the explanation of hybrid cryptosystems

[1] Look up "lattice-based cryptography".
[2] The actual requirement is that m is coprime to n and that m < k, but p and q are to be kept secret, so just use a fudge factor here and trust that messages m that are multiples of p or q are extremely rare.
[3] the Chinese Remainder Theorem

I don't trust any of these companies enough to waste my time on the added security measures, knowing there's a good likelihood the government has some way to get around it anyhow.

All the revelations have shown that American companies colluded with the NSA to put in secret backdoors in hardware and software alike, compromising our security for the curiosity of a paranoid and bloated Cold War relic.

In a world where our routers/modems give access to the NSA anyhow, how safe could a key be? It protects you from the same ease of spying perhaps, but at the same time marks you as a person of suspicion in the eyes of his paranoid group for just trying to hide what you're doing.

All that effort and people will render it useless by using an outdated OS and browser so someone can just get into the client and get the key.

Oh and please stop with all this "hackers will break it in x" please, PGP is a very complex algorithm and to brute force it would take many many many many times longer than your lifetime, best way to break ti would be to get into the client and steal the key.

Tamayo:

1. Alice chooses a completely new random key K for use in the symmetric cryptosystem S. She computes C = S(K, M).
2. Alice encrypts K using Bob's public key E in the asymmetric system A. She computes R = A(E, K).
3. Alice sends *both* values C and R to Bob.
4. Bob uses his private key D in the asymmetric system to recover K from R.
5. Finally, Bob uses K in the symmetric system to recover M from S.

Note in particular that Alice and Bob never actually communicate the raw value K. If the size of a message M is much bigger than the size of a key K, then this scheme works out computationally and practically.

heres the problem i see with this:
How does key D know how to decode whats encrypted with E. She communicates C to Bob as well as encrypted R. if somone hijacks that communication and reads both C and R and has acess to public E, he can generate his own D cant he?

The problem is that this looses security since you need to send the puzzle pieces to the other person.

alj:
Oh and please stop with all this "hackers will break it in x" please, PGP is a very complex algorithm and to brute force it would take many many many many times longer than your lifetime, best way to break ti would be to get into the client and steal the key.

Bruteforcing isnt the only way to break algorythms.

Mr.Tea:

Queen Michael:
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

Somethingfake:
A year? My friend, you give them *fair*(far?) too little credit.

Are you guys/gals seriously comparing this to video game DRM?

PGP encryption hasn't been broken in ~20 years, so I guess you already lose...

Queen Michael:

Somethingfake:

Queen Michael:
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet 1,000 right now that it'll be completely figured out and broken through by hackers within a year of its release.

A year? My friend, you give them *fair* too little credit.

I'm better off financially than most people, but even I don't want to lose 1,000 quid if I can help it.

I'd easily put every money I own that they won't. This isn't some kind of DRM that can be broken by switching a number in a file. Encryptions like these are getting so convoluted that even if you know how to break them, and had access to a supercomputer, it would still take more time than exists in the universe to break them.

You know the encryptions banks uses to let you log in? It took a team of academics 3 years to break ONE key of 512 bit...most banks now use 2048 bit codes. Just even try to wrap your brain around how insanely large that number is

BiH-Kira:
If there is a way for the legit user to read his message, there is also a way for the hacker in. There is literally nothing that can't be hacked but is connected to a network where everyone can connect.

Also the government doesn't "brute force" the encryption nor do they have as weak computers as people assume that it would take them years to crack. Especially not the US which invests billions into the army and national security where national security is moving more and more into the virtual world.

Again, you completely misunderstand how encryption works if you think they can be broken like this. With almost every encryption in use in the world right now, you can make a quick google on how to break it. The problem lies in the sheer size of the keys being used, and being used in such a way that computers get bogged down and struggles to get around them. Resulting in some encryptions right now not being able to be broken with the computers we have to today, even if you literally waited until end of time. This probably won't be quite as heavy, seeing as its suppose to be used with every single email which is a lot. But it does give you an idea of how its like to try and unravel these things.

Strazdas:
all encryption is a matter of effort. if the gains for breaking it starts exceeding the effort needed to break it - it will be broken. there is no unbreakable encryptions.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. If Google/Yahoo do this properly, it will be unbreakable for all intents and purposes; a few centuries of dedicated brute force decryption for a single user is still breakable, but it's a technicality at that point.

It's more likely the system will have some inherent flaw that makes it easier to break, but theoretically it can be totally locked down by giving full control of the encryption to users. Mistakes and social engineering notwithstanding, careful users shouldn't have any privacy problems.

Strazdas:

Tamayo:
*snip*

heres the problem i see with this:
How does key D know how to decode whats encrypted with E. She communicates C to Bob as well as encrypted R. if somone hijacks that communication and reads both C and R and has acess to public E, he can generate his own D cant he?

The thing is that you can't calculate a specific D given C, R and E. You can calculate a rainbow table by running A for every K. Just running this will take thousands of years and consume more hard drive space then there is in the world. If you're not making a table you'll have to brute force every single key.

As always, correct me if I'm wrong.

RA92:
If Google can't decrypt my mail, how are they supposed to display ads based on the contents of my mail?

Lol, this. A thousand times this.
You have made my day lol

RA92:
If Google can't decrypt my mail, how are they supposed to display ads based on the contents of my mail?

I was thinking something similar. I'm willing to bet that the "privacy" aspect they're spouting has a little asterisk next to it saying "Well, not from us or anyone we sell your personal info to, obviously. No way we're risking that ad money!"

Tamayo:
[epic snippage]

Thanks for a) correcting me and b) explaining the topic in more detail than I could be arsed to :)

Or, as the young ones today say it: "What he said!"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here