Rufus wrote:
...and is it true that SM uses strong encryption?
As I said, I'm no expert on that and so I can't tell. The only thing I
actually can tell you is that we're using the same code as Firefox 3.5,
so if that one does strong encryption there, we do it. If it doesn't, we
don't. I'm
Rufus schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rufus wrote:
http://luxsci.com/blog/master-password-encryption-in-firefox-and-thunderbird.html
Does this info actually hold for SM 2.0? And does SM 2.0 use strong 128
bit encryption when doing so? I have a Master set in 2.0, and I do need
to give it the
Jens Hatlak schrieb:
Rufus wrote:
Under 1.1.18 there was a pref selection for encryption vise obscuring
of sensitive data during storage. Is it correct to assume that SM 2.0
now encrypts sensitive data by default, and with what strength? Strong
128 bit?..I hope...
No, it doesn't encrypt by
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser wrote:
Keith Whaley schrieb:
I have a feeling I might want to know a litle more detail about that
last sentence.
Would you kindly elaborate on ...we always encrypt, but default
generate a key from an empty master password.?
Not on personal mail, if you want a reply,
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Jens Hatlak schrieb:
Rufus wrote:
Under 1.1.18 there was a pref selection for encryption vise obscuring
of sensitive data during storage. Is it correct to assume that SM 2.0
now encrypts sensitive data by default, and with what strength? Strong
128 bit?..I hope...
No, it
Rufus wrote:
http://luxsci.com/blog/master-password-encryption-in-firefox-and-thunderbird.html
Does this info actually hold for SM 2.0? And does SM 2.0 use strong 128
bit encryption when doing so? I have a Master set in 2.0, and I do need
to give it the Master to show passwords in the Manager.
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rufus wrote:
http://luxsci.com/blog/master-password-encryption-in-firefox-and-thunderbird.html
Does this info actually hold for SM 2.0? And does SM 2.0 use strong 128
bit encryption when doing so? I have a Master set in 2.0, and I do need
to give it the Master to show
Rufus wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Jens Hatlak schrieb:
Rufus wrote:
Under 1.1.18 there was a pref selection for encryption vise obscuring
of sensitive data during storage. Is it correct to assume that SM 2.0
now encrypts sensitive data by default, and with what strength? Strong
128 bit?..I
Under 1.1.18 there was a pref selection for encryption vise obscuring of
sensitive data during storage. Is it correct to assume that SM 2.0 now
encrypts sensitive data by default, and with what strength? Strong 128
bit?..I hope...
...it would also be nice if the Password Quality meter that
Rufus wrote:
Under 1.1.18 there was a pref selection for encryption vise obscuring of
sensitive data during storage. Is it correct to assume that SM 2.0 now
encrypts sensitive data by default, and with what strength? Strong 128
bit?..I hope...
No, it doesn't encrypt by default, only
10 matches
Mail list logo
