Transition to Qt6. A work in progress. Continues the work from: #7783
Fixes #7774.
TODO:
Test Auto-Type with macOS
Test with Windows
Test with Linux
Test with macOS
MacPasteBoard
Fix FdoSecr...
With pass, each password lives inside of a gpg encrypted file whose filename is the title of the website or resource that requires the password. These encrypted files may be organized into meaningful folder hierarchies, copied from computer to computer, and, in general, manipulated using standard command line file management utilities.
This sounds cool, but relies completely on OpenPGP. That is secure enough, right?
But this also means
no metadata security
no usernames
no comment
It is cool, but only having a single entry means you can not replace the website with a more anonymous placeholder.
For sure this tool sounds pretty great! Especially encrypting everything seperately is very nice.
But sometimes getting a name might already be too much.
Also to avoid big brother connecting all data, I normally have an entry like
Sure, I see what you mean. Note that I responded to the “this sucks” remark about pass by the other commenter. There is no one preventing you to use for example one password entry with Pass on a remote work server logging in with ssh sharing it with a colleague while having the other 100 password work entries kept in KeePassXC and then using Bitwarden for your 200 personal passwords.
This sounds cool, but relies completely on OpenPGP. That is secure enough, right?
But this also means
It is cool, but only having a single entry means you can not replace the website with a more anonymous placeholder.
For sure this tool sounds pretty great! Especially encrypting everything seperately is very nice.
But sometimes getting a name might already be too much.
Also to avoid big brother connecting all data, I normally have an entry like
Entry: MSOffice username: [email protected] password: ••••••••••••••••••••• URL: xxxxx Comment: Username: xxxxxxxxx name: albert einstein birthday: 2.6.1956 Security question 1 2 3 TOTP backup keys: xxxx Random commentThis is all not possible, which means I would need the same username everywhere, or remember it (I dont, I have 300 Keepass entries).
In KeepassXC I have a single file. Hackers would need to bruteforce only one. But at least they wouldnt know exactly what they want to decrypt.
Sure, I see what you mean. Note that I responded to the “this sucks” remark about pass by the other commenter. There is no one preventing you to use for example one password entry with Pass on a remote work server logging in with ssh sharing it with a colleague while having the other 100 password work entries kept in KeePassXC and then using Bitwarden for your 200 personal passwords.
Yup, it is really cool! I have to learn to use it and use it on occasions
I wonder if you could just encrypt a storage which is then used by pass unencrypted. So you have double encryption using something like gocryptfs.