Peter Lairo wrote:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
currently done does not provide any protection at all.
Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
If you think so... In the next sentence, I said that I meant that
anybody can still read the profile files, even though the user
Christian Biesinger wrote:
If you think so... In the next sentence, I said that I meant that
anybody can still read the profile files, even though the user might
think they are now very well protected.
That's what the warning statement is for.
You are aware that *0 profile passwords
Bill Lee wrote:
I've heard/read that someone is stalling this due to personal distaste
for the feature, even though it's done.
No that's not quite true. From reading the bugreport at
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 I get the impression
that the module owner, who has to
Christian Biesinger wrote:
currently done does not provide any protection at all.
Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
You are aware that *0 profile passwords 128bit protection* is at
least some protection? And in fact, it is the amount and type of
protection many
Peter Lairo wrote:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
currently done does not provide any protection at all.
Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
You are aware that *0 profile passwords 128bit protection* is at
least some protection? And in fact, it is the amount and
