<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Browser Sync</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/</link>
	<description>My life for all to read</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:04:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/comment-page-1/#comment-6812</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 23:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/#comment-6812</guid>
		<description>Well, if the data is encrypted with the pin while on google&#039;s system and they don&#039;t save the pin (it&#039;s not just for transport security), it&#039;s as secure on their system as it is in transport.

The issue is a pin really isn&#039;t secure enough to use as an encryption key.  At minimum you really would need a long passphrase to do proper encryption.  If it&#039;s just a password for the encryption key, the problem is how is the key stored.  If only on your systems, it&#039;s probably as safe as keeping the passwords stored locally.  If it&#039;s retrieved from google with the pin, then it&#039;s really no safer than just encryption with the pin itself.

Of course if the browser is also encrypting the passwords you&#039;re again as safe as that layer.  Which may be good, but probably has the week point of the password again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, if the data is encrypted with the pin while on google&#8217;s system and they don&#8217;t save the pin (it&#8217;s not just for transport security), it&#8217;s as secure on their system as it is in transport.</p>
<p>The issue is a pin really isn&#8217;t secure enough to use as an encryption key.  At minimum you really would need a long passphrase to do proper encryption.  If it&#8217;s just a password for the encryption key, the problem is how is the key stored.  If only on your systems, it&#8217;s probably as safe as keeping the passwords stored locally.  If it&#8217;s retrieved from google with the pin, then it&#8217;s really no safer than just encryption with the pin itself.</p>
<p>Of course if the browser is also encrypting the passwords you&#8217;re again as safe as that layer.  Which may be good, but probably has the week point of the password again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Osborne</title>
		<link>http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/comment-page-1/#comment-6761</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Osborne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 12:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bleaus.net/2007/05/08/google-browser-sync/#comment-6761</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know why it would have to be insecure. It sounds much like the encryption keys used in SSH, but I am sure there is someone else who knows much more about this than I.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know why it would have to be insecure. It sounds much like the encryption keys used in SSH, but I am sure there is someone else who knows much more about this than I.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

