Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by maxtaco 4466 days ago
We agree this is a problem, all of those who try to access their private key during the compromise would be in trouble. Those who stayed offline would be safe.

BTW, this argument does not extend to the CLI or other uncompromised clients. People who sync their private keys across devices with the CLI are unaffected.
1 comments
peterwwillis 4466 days ago
I'm confused. It sounds like users are able to sync their private keys with the CLI, or with the web interface. It also sounds like if they do it with the web interface, they are at risk, whereas with the CLI they are not at risk.

If my understanding is correct, my question is: What is the reason for this difference in security for the two use cases, and isn't there some way to provide web access without reducing security? What about browser add-ons? Client certificates?

link
maxtaco 4466 days ago
A browser extension is in our (ever-expanding) todo list. We had one a few months ago, but we have to do a fair amount of work to get it back up to snuff.
link