[bkaid]

So Dropbox security is based on a code obfuscator? And was it an intern that let us log into any dropbox account with any password? Kidding, but seriously, they need to get more interns because one of the most requested feature for years on their site is remote wipe (https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/35/remote-destroy-purge-opti...) and they never implement it. Granted its not an entirely reliable method but its better than not offering it.

[rodh257]

That's not what they are saying at all. The obfuscator is to protect their source code, it has nothing to do with your account and files being secured or not.

[crdoconnor]

Remote wipe is a horrible way to implement security on a Dropbox account. Better is client side encryption - although Dropbox has no intention of implementing that either.

There are a few other companies that have, however: http://skeptu.com/secure-alternatives-to-dropbox

[esrauch]

Every major company uses code obfuscation/minification/compilation on their javascript. It's not really clear what they mean though...

[latch]

I think it's pretty clear that they mean their source code. This isn't about user security, it's about their intellectual property.

(To your parent, not you): Sometimes I'm sure people misunderstand on purpose just so they have something to be indignant about.

[kingkilr]

This isn't for their javascript, it's for their client which is Python code. Their previous obfuscator has been broken (by at least one nice hacker who told them).

[igorgue]

obfuscation != minification != compilation

[esrauch]

Compilation where the source and target language are the same = obfuscation and minification