Christian Biesinger wrote:
> If you think so... In the next sentence, I said that I meant that
> anybody can still read the profile files, even though the user might
> think they are now very well protected.
That's what the warning statement is for.
>> You are aware that *0 < profile passwor
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> currently done does not provide any protection at all.
> Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
If you think so... In the next sentence, I said that I meant that
anybody can still read the profile files, even though the use
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>
>> currently done does not provide any protection at all.
>
>
>
> Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
>
> You are aware that *0 < profile passwords < 128bit protection* is at
> least some protection? And in fact, it is the
Christian Biesinger wrote:
> currently done does not provide any protection at all.
Spoken like a true troll (inflammation via exaggeration).
You are aware that *0 < profile passwords < 128bit protection* is at
least some protection? And in fact, it is the amount and type of
protection many
Bill Lee wrote:
> I've heard/read that someone is stalling this due to personal distaste
> for the feature, even though it's done.
No that's not quite true. From reading the bugreport at
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 I get the impression
that the module owner, who has to l
I've heard/read that someone is stalling this due to personal distaste
for the feature, even though it's done.
bl
