- LEGACY 1PASSWORD FOR MAC LION VERIFICATION
- LEGACY 1PASSWORD FOR MAC LION PASSWORD
- LEGACY 1PASSWORD FOR MAC LION LICENSE
Everyone should have realized this when Apple’s OCSP responder went down in November 2020 and nobody could launch anything that wasn’t built in to the OS.Īccording to TFA this kind of verification will now occur every time an application is launched to deter post-verification “tampering” by you, the user.
If Encrypted notes with text or images are decently secure…that expands the potential universe of alternatives a lot since those two features are lacking in a lot of packages.The existence of Gatekeeper already causes a huge privacy violation by “requiring” my computer to phone home to verify the signature the first time it launches an application.
LEGACY 1PASSWORD FOR MAC LION PASSWORD
I’m not sure how a 16 byte key compares to 1PW and a 22 character password as far as security goes…but if it provides effective encryption and takes something in the centuries to crack that’s probably good enough if it is E2EE…anybody know what a 16 byte password converts to as an equivalent xx characters? Guess that’s actually 2 questions instead of 1. It uses a 16 byte key according to what I read derived from the password used for encryption…so that seems to imply that it is effective E2EE. Does anybody know if encrypting a note in Apple Notes is actually effectively E2EE so that Apple has no ability to see into it.
On a related note as we all ponder switch or not options…a lot/most of the local storage capable options seem to lack Secure Notes and image attachment options. I’m not really that hard over on a native client although I would prefer one though…they only dealbreaker for me is local storage backup and restore options. But, again, we’ll see.Īccording to them…they’re sticking with Electron for macOS. I’d have to say that the vast majority of my use on the Mac of 1pw is just to fill in passwords and I really don’t open the app all that often anyway. I know people don’t like Electron apps on the Mac - I don’t either - but I’ll reserve judgement until it ships, and it’s possible that the app will be perfectly usable, and that’s fine with me.
They have redeveloped the app for all platforms, added a Linux client, and are trying to unify the front end across as many platforms as possible. It seems the effort is equal for all platforms.
LEGACY 1PASSWORD FOR MAC LION LICENSE
It’s not all that recent, though for all 1pw says about people choosing subscriptions over stand-alone by huge margins, the biggest reason is probably because 1pw basically hid any information about getting a standalone license for many years now.Īgain, I’d say you should read the blog post before you say they are doing less for Mac users, because it doesn’t appear that way to me. The subscription model goes pretty far back. In addition to recently switching to a subscription model, they are doing a lot less for Mac users while raking in more revenue from them annually. It’s possible that a future version will just go with AppKit, but they haven’t really said that. They could have gone back to AppKit for MacOS, but by the time they discovered the issues with SwiftUI, it would have taken too long to go back to AppKit. But then they found out after development started that SwiftUI is not ready for that yet, so they are temporarily using Electron on Mac until Apple has their next-gen Mac development APIs ready. The Mac is complicated, as Apple seems to be encouraging developers to move to newer platforms like SwiftUI rather than traditional AppKit, but for 1pw that would mean either using SwiftUI for newer MacOSes and use something like Electron for legacy older MacOS versions, and 1pw was hoping to use the same SwiftUI front-end for iOS, iPadOS, and MacOS. Their blog post explains what’s going on, but they are attempting to reduce the number of UI front-end development platforms. I’m not a 1PW user, but what I don’t understand here is why they are divorcing themselves from Mac when Mac sales have been going through the roof over the past year.
0 kommentar(er)
