|
and yet, my username and passwords have not been compromised. By law, Google would have to notify me if they were. I have yet to receive any such notification.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: By law, Google would have to notify me if they were. I have yet to receive any such notification.
Yas if they always do what law says... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
not really. Big corporations don't care about keeping user data safe - all I have to do is cite the dozens of breaches and the delayed "oops, we got hacked" announcement. I refer you to the Equifax case where they kept it under wraps for quite a long time.
I guess I can see the efficacy of checking the dark web for accounts/passwords, but that means they have my account / password in the clear. Hmmm.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
How is Google or anyone else supposed to know what was stolen?
|
|
|
|
|
Google isn't quite Facebook when it comes to privacy scandals (and to make things more spicy, Facebook announced homomorphically analyzing encrypted user communication to target ads), but they're not that far behind, including Google insiders stating that location privacy settings on Android are obtuse on purpose to trick people into not disabling location tracking.
My point is, I suggest not to trust Google. At all. Their "don't be evil" motto has been a hollow shadow 10 years ago and there's no reason to assume things would get any better.
|
|
|
|
|
Use the browsers manager for basic websites, say codeproject, and 1Password for everything else, it's never been hacked, and will protect your stuff better than you can. There are so many websites, the totally undisputed best thing you can do, is use a different password on each one.
I can't remember them, so 1Password does.
|
|
|
|
|
I also use 1Password. It defaults at 20 characters but you can set it longer or shorter and tell it to include dashes, hyphens and characters. I've had problems because of the website (doesn't allow underscores or something similar) but not with the 1Password program. I don't trust Google, I'm not sure about FireFox, and at times I've heard bad things about most pay password managers, but a lot of that is that people don't like the re-occurring cost. I don't either, but I don't want to try writing something myself and my only real option other than a manager is to write it down, even though I'm not supposed to. And I still need to come up with a unique password myself that doesn't violate whatever rules that site/program requires.
There are probably other good managers out there, so pick one. That's the path I would advise- find a dedicated password program that isn't owned by a company whose primary business is selling your information.
|
|
|
|
|
I use Keepass, but have been wondering if it is a good idea. It is open-source, so couldn't someone motivated just gt the code to decrypt it and bust any keepass database?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm thinking old-school and this has been mitigated, but...
Isn't the browser's password manager running in, well, the same process space as the browser itself?
Doesn't that mean that a running plug-in is just a buffer overflow away from being able to access any memory the browser has access to, including that of its password manager...?
|
|
|
|
|
I use both Keepass and allow Google to store passwords, at both work and at home. A few reasons why:
* My corporate IT Security department is about as security crazy as you are (which is not necessarily bad). They recommend we use Keepass.
* I use a different password for every website.
* Keepass is my local store for passwords I really care about. Google is for convenience for throw-away websites.
* Many websites have no personal info on me (just an email address).
* I have a throw-away email address I use for sites that are suspect or I don't expect to use again.
* Many websites are throw-away sites. I need to log in once for some specific reason and might never go back there.
* Except for a few financial-based websites, I don't care if it gets hacked. It won't impact my life or access to other websites.
* Why? Most info that people think is private is actually very public and has been long before the digital age.
Just my 2 cents.
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
I usage keepass and can't envision why should I give up it in favor of some shady corporation
|
|
|
|
|
This is my personal opinion, but I would suggest to stay away from Google. I just can't trust them. Remember what was discovered about the Private mode on Chrome . . . well they were still tracking you  . I will not say more.
Gilles Plante
|
|
|
|
|
Gilles Plante wrote: Remember what was discovered about the Private mode on Chrome . . . well they were still tracking you
I don't think there was ever anything to be "discovered" there, except for the unwashed masses who don't know how a browser works (not that I blame them).
And they make no bone about it...I've just launched an instance in incognito mode, and they do point out "Chrome won't save the following information:" vs "Your activity might still be visible to:"...
Edge does the same, although their wording might be a little more user-friendly ("What InPrivate browsing does" vs "What InPrivate browsing doesn't do").
|
|
|
|
|
NO, perhaps and yet. NO!
I have three levels of passwords ok four.
Level 1 - the password that I throw away. I have like three of these depending upon my mood. My kids know them. Friends know them. I don't really give them out. But I don't care if Google knows them. For when I login to stupid areas of the web. Places that want a password that really I am like why???
Level 2 - Semi secure. I don't let Google or anyone know these. They follow a basic formula that I have in my head. I can "guess" what my password user combination is just based upon which website I am at. for instance. Facebook has a combination of fb in the string of characters that I use. My son and Daughter have figured out this code. The dear wife has not. funny that.
Level 3 - Work password. Different than anything else. not related. Only in my head.
Level 4 - Banking only the Dear Lady knows this password. Updated on occasion. Written down in an envelop stored in the gun safe that only my lady and I know the combination.
I should add this works for me. Also, since I own my own domain. I frequently signup with email addresses off the top of my head like. thisbusinessname@mydomain.com For example bestbuy@mydomain.com I can then easily tell who is selling my information. And I always use the level 1 passwords at that time.
I never really have to write down a password this way. except for Level 4.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I use Google. I have a hard copy file encrypted and I keep Google's password strong and updated. I figure it's no better or worse than LastPass or another manager. I hate the "all my eggs in one basket" but what's really the alternative? I have over 500 passwords and every single one is unique, long, and complicated. I can't remember 5 of them let alone 500. I have to have some manager to help with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I barely trust Google to be my search engine, and honestly most of it out of habit, so no, i don't trust my passwords to them.
If you're super paranoid, you can use an open source password manager like KeePass, or if you want some more convenience something like Bitwarden, which can also be self hosted.
"Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn’t exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again." Ray Bradbury
|
|
|
|
|
RafagaX wrote: If you're super paranoid, you can use an open source password manager like KeePass,
I've never heard KeePass being described as a tool for the "super paranoid". Tor passes that bar for me. But KeePass is just common sense IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
I've spent all my savings on pasta, but it was worth every penne!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Anything to keep you from writing more spaghetti code.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Careful! I have a very short Fusilli ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly you rotini prose for the maximum impact, orzo it seems. You forgot, however to hit the sauce this time. Well, that's all in the pastina .
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
This definitely wasn't the plan, now I have to try and do better tomorrow.
Clue 1
“Following a distorted representation of my surroundings, my very existence seems confused with an area beyond my vision. This will only increase!“ (9)
Following -> (do this bit first)
Representation of my surroundings -> MAP -> distorted -> AMP
My very existence -> LIFE
An area beyond my vision -> IR
Seems confused with (anagram) LIFIER
This will only increase (definition) -> AMPLIFIER
Clue 2
"Pilfer! I am wicked and this will only increase!"
Wicked -> Anagram indicator
Pilfer I am is anagram of AMPLIFIER
This will only increase - definition.
Now I'll duck and take the flak ...
|
|
|
|
|
 for the revision
🔥🔥🔥 for the original 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Rich it was the definition that needed tweaking a bit - for increase I was thinking multiply, inflation,grow etc etc.. didn't think of increase in sound as that is specific. I look forward to tomorrows offering 
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
