4 ms·
I hear you. But I worry that that's not enough. I trust Syncthing and the (many) Keepass (X/C)++ developers, but how hard really would it be to slip something i
by rhamzeh 7y ago
I hear you. But I worry that that's not enough. I trust Syncthing and the (many) Keepass (X/C)++ developers, but how hard really would it be to slip something in unnoticed. All it requires is some minuscule bug somewhere. It doesn't need to be in the software itself! It can be in the compiler, or in the crypto or in the machine running it.
If the OpenSSL debacle taught us, open source and the fact that many people can look at the code does not mean it's actually being looked at. Don't get me wrong, still loads better than non-open source, but you're still face a huge risk. I'm slightly competent as a developer (not that much, just enough to barely get by) and still looking at the code base of the many apps, services and platforms I use, I'm astounded by the fact that I have no clue how they actually work, and if there is any obvious attack vector there. MOST people have even less of an understanding of all these than I do.
- mehrdadn 7y agoWhat kind of a KeePass bug would compromise your passwords by itself though? Are you imagining instead of saving your passwords it'd "accidentally" upload them to sketchyserver.com?
- ekianjo 7y ago> All it requires is some minuscule bug somewhere You can say the exact same thing for any proprietary software or web service. The point of self-hosting is reducing the attack surface and probability of an attack.