←back to thread

Firefox-Passwords-Decryptor: Extracts and decrypts passwords saved in Firefox

(github.com)
95 points thunderbong | 8 comments | 22 Oct 24 04:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
java-man ◴[22 Oct 24 04:34 UTC] No.41911233[source]▶
Firefox is using TripleDES??
replies(3): >>41911581 #>>41911662 #>>41911814 #
hulitu ◴[22 Oct 24 05:59 UTC] No.41911581[source]▶
> Firefox is using TripleDES??

What's wrong with it ? /s

replies(1): >>41911639 #
penguin359 ◴[22 Oct 24 06:10 UTC] No.41911639[source]▶
I would mostly say that it's just slow and AES is a much more modern and faster (partly due to hardware acceleration built into modern chips) that is already built info Firefox to support TLS anyways. There are some known attacks against 3DES now, but nothing that completely breaks it yet. And, since this is just for local storage, primarily, it shouldn't be as vulnerable as using 3DES for TLS channel encryption.
replies(2): >>41911660 #>>41912047 #
N-Krause ◴[22 Oct 24 06:14 UTC] No.41911660[source]▶
Thanks, even tho the comment above signaled sarcasm, the explanation was helpful for me, as I really had no idea what 3DES means and why it could be problematic.
replies(1): >>41911682 #
1. Dalewyn ◴[22 Oct 24 06:18 UTC] No.41911682[source]▶
I shudder to think that even a simple Google query leading to a Wikipedia article was too much effort here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES

replies(2): >>41911722 #>>41912507 #
2. bbarnett ◴[22 Oct 24 06:26 UTC] No.41911722[source]▶
Any "simple" Google query now means pages of nonsense answers, promoted sites, AI "help", before you even get to a cogent result.

Much better to just talk to others than use Google.

replies(4): >>41911743 #>>41911809 #>>41911817 #>>41912948 #
3. Scoundreller ◴[22 Oct 24 06:31 UTC] No.41911743[source]▶
Reddit, got it.

and Google and quora are in cahoots, right?

4. echoangle ◴[22 Oct 24 06:43 UTC] No.41911809[source]▶
When I google „TripleDES“, the first result is a box showing the Wikipedia article on Triple DES. Click on that and you’re done.
5. andrepd ◴[22 Oct 24 06:45 UTC] No.41911817[source]▶
Agree with the sentiment, but that's a Wikipedia link. Wikipedia is (as of yet) immune to LLM slop
replies(1): >>41912760 #
6. N-Krause ◴[22 Oct 24 09:08 UTC] No.41912507[source]▶
The problem wasn't that a google search was to much effort, I just happened to be in the comments and saw this right with an explanation below it.

I actually read up on it quite a bit afterwards.

Feels very unwarranted to just assume laziness into a simple thank you for information spreading.

7. nneonneo ◴[22 Oct 24 09:56 UTC] No.41912760{3}[source]▶
Meh...not immune, just resistant. There's unfortunately a big difference. LLM slop is coming in at the corners, typically on articles that are less well-patrolled.
8. dspillett ◴[22 Oct 24 10:32 UTC] No.41912948[source]▶
> promoted sites, AI "help"

I've been experimenting with Kagi for those reasons (amongst others) and finding it works well. Far from ideal for all as it isn't free after 100 queries, but it seems to be a workable solution to the problem for me for now.