4 ms·
Even then, you are trusting the app to do what it says it's going to do. The only way I feel 100% safe is encrypting the file manually before sending (through w
by codebolt 9y ago
Even then, you are trusting the app to do what it says it's going to do. The only way I feel 100% safe is encrypting the file manually before sending (through whatever platform), and sharing the key through some other medium (preferably word of mouth).
As a Windows user I mostly use 7-zip for this purpose, or the encryption plugin in Notepad++ for text.
- cyphar 9y agoIf the app is free software it can be audited. The problem with web-based crypto is that you're downloading a new program every page refresh and executing it immediately. If you're worried about a free software app not encrypting things properly, I'd be worried about the tools you use manually doing the right thing as well. While I agree that doing it manually is the only reliable way if you're going to send it over an insecure channel, if the channel is secure then it's much easier for an end-user to just send it in the app.
- pleasecalllater 9y agoAnd that's still just a feeling. You just feel you can trust the encryption application. Which can be changed any time in the future in a way it is not secure any more. You just need to trust. So what's wrong in trusting Mozilla, if you can easily trust your encryption/decryption software?
- galaxyLogic 9y agoWhy would you trust 7-zip or NotePad++ more than FireFox?
- jhasse 9y agoBecause I don't trust Mozilla, see https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6mw1ld/firefox_tracks_users_with_google_analytics_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6mw1ld/firefox_track... or http://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-which-slurps-user-browsing-data/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whic...