fitnessport.blogg.se

1. #CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE HOW TO#
2. #CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE PORTABLE#
3. #CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE ANDROID#

In reality, I don't consider either keyloggers or password management company computers to be huge enough risks that I lose sleep over them. The smaller the attack surface, the better. If there's no real reason to send data over the net, then I don't want to send data over the net.

So I'm more worried about sharing data with the password management company systems themselves. And the keylogger would have to phone home with the data, which is unlikely (but not impossible) to happen without raising some alarms. That's certainly possible, but if malware were able to get installed despite my other protections, then I probably have much larger issues. A keylogger would have to come in through malware.

Keyloggers rank low for me because I'm only using my own devices that I have physical control over, so a dongle is unlikely. And wonder if not being a good role model will hurt them down the line. But yeah, i don't like the less and less open direction apparently chosen by Mozilla. Still recommend using Firefox, since it is the best we have. Sorry, but how is that different from an App store without side-loading? With the escape hatch for devs requiring some stupid online-account. only a very short list of pre-approved extensions are available.

#CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE ANDROID#

The Firefox Android Addon system is even worse. Not the open, user controlled system i'd love Firefox to be. I'd love to be corrected, but afaik the "password manager with extraordinarily well-integrated browser compatibility" doesn't offer any way or API to connect my keepass with it. Now, in the same vein I expect MS & Google making it easy to support different browsers, I'd want Mozilla making it easy to integrate other password managers. Keepass and some bit of custom sync, in this case. I prefer to choose the individual parts as i see fit. Like having the browser closely tied to the OS. Yes, these days there seems to be a strong drive to just get a big package out of a single hand. I'd even say "adding a second vendor you need to trust". > adding a second component you need to trust

#CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE PORTABLE#

We'd absolutely love there to be safe, portable ways to move our data around such that it remains encrypted while migrating, yes, but that's just not something our current crop of software really enables fully these days, unfortunately.

Users aren't necessarily highly computer literate, we don't want to prevent people from having security, but even if they were they may still have use cases that do not accept such a database (migrating password manager that don't know your previous one, perhaps), so most of them use (unencrypted) plain text and just accept they'll have to leave it in the user's hands, and warn them it's exposed.

#CHROMIUM VS CHROME PERFORMANCE HOW TO#

That's effectively what almost all of them say when you export your logins (usually as CSV, JSON, or XML), because they export in plain text, because you don't know what the user needs it for, up to and including manual imputation (better than expect a random user to have to learn how to print out a database, or worse submit that database file to some online service to print out). " Your paswords will be saved as readable text (e.g., so anyone who can open the exported file can view them."