Alexander Mueller wrote: > This question is covered by my initial posting :).
Not really. And yes, I did read what you posted. > But basically this is still to be discussed I'm just pointing out that if this is to solve the use cases you claim it solves, there is nothing to discuss. There is only one possible course of action. Of course if you're not actually trying to solve what you say you're trying to solve, then this is up for discussion. >> Weak encryption is almost worse than none: it provides a false sense >> of safety without an appreciable increase in security... > > Thats why I wrote semi-encryption as it is no encryption but a hashing, > which cannot be reversed/decrypted by concept. Hence no weak encryption. It still has the same issue: provides a false sense of security where there is none. -Boris _______________________________________________ dev-security mailing list dev-security@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
