Zinggi

5 ms·

1.
by Zinggi 3y ago
Pretty sure you mean this one: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The-Speedup-Loop
2.
by Zinggi 6y ago
In JS, my preferred way of handling json is heavily inspired by the elm json decoding way. I want my decoders to essentially do 2 things: 1. Transform received data into a data structure that is best suited for my app. This might involve co
3.
by Zinggi 6y ago
You shouldn't validate json. You should parse it, e.g. transform it into your desired data structure if it comes in in a valid shape. https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
4.
by Zinggi 6y ago
You might be interested in lamdera. It abstracts away database access, data transport and data encoding between client end server. Here is a talk about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSrucNcwlA8 If you're int
5.
by Zinggi 6y ago
Thank you! Well put.
6.
by Zinggi 8y ago
> the Android app requires no device permissions That's not true, it just uses the new way to ask for permissions. E.g. when you want to scan a QR code it requires the camera permission. But it only asks at that moment, not upfront
7.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Yep, from a user perspective it definitely looks like 2FA. In terms of technology it's of course completely different.
8.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Ah ok, got it. If you are already using KeePass than there is no reason to use NoKey, KeePass is great! > Not everyone has a million devices. I don't think that's fair. With 3 devices you're perfectly ok. Or even with only
9.
by Zinggi 8y ago
But wouldn't you agree that your brain + NoKey instead of a piece of paper as a backup would be more secure? And more convenient, as you don't have to type your passwords anymore. I don't wanna push you, just wanna give you s
10.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Exactly. Or even 3 if you make use of security level 3. The only exception is at the start when there are no passwords stored yet.
11.
by Zinggi 8y ago
When pairing a new device (or in this case a new browser), that device doesn't automatically get any keys! When adding a new device, to complete the setup you also have to be able to unlock a password group, for which you need another
12.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Yes, but it's a very bad idea. If you'd do this, you could unlock your passwords with a single device by confirming on Firefox or vice-versa on Chrome. This of course also means that if someone steals this device, they can unlock
13.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Oh, than I misunderstood, sorry. You're absolutely correct.
14.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Thanks. I was always wondering why others don't do this more often. I find it much easier to remember and type in a few words compared to a long number.
15.
by Zinggi 8y ago
> Doesn't this increase your attack surface greatly though? That's true. I suppose it's a trade off between protection against lost vs. smaller attack surface. > Since there's no master key, one has to only comprom
16.
by Zinggi 8y ago
You lose access to your passwords, that's the consequence of that approach. That's why it's a very good idea to pair as many devices as you can, e.g. an old phone, your work PC, etc. This way you're pretty save from any
17.
by Zinggi 8y ago
Hi all! This is my first time posting something to HN, so please be kind. I wanted to show what I’ve been working on for the last 6 months: NoKey, a password manager without a master password. Instead, you can unlock your passwords by confi
18.
Show HN: NoKey, a Distributed Password Manager Without a Master Password(github.com)
37 points by Zinggi 8y ago|27 comments