[PuffinBlue]

You understand that all the passwords/data are encrypted client side and only the encrypted blob is stored in the cloud?

This is exactly what users of Keepass et al espouse when they talk of having their 'locally encrypted database' and syncing it over dropbox etc.

You, at least, are identifying the benefit of physical security, but if we are to place any trust at all in encryption then we must accept such a scheme (local encryption, cloud sync) as being robust, if correctly implemented.

Under this scheme, obtaining the encrypted blob (which hasn't happened in this case) would still not be a cause for alarm, if we are to trust the strength of the encryption scheme.

There comes a point that you must trust 'something'. That choice for me is in encryption.

[nrser]

yeah... the synchronization for these services should be zero-knowledge. though maybe not the best idea, my vault should remain secure even if available publicly, right?

sync is a must have feature for many, myself included.

[socceroos]

ROT13 fan?

[PuffinBlue]

?

[socceroos]

Encryption is as good as it's independent proofs. Even then, the proofs are only as good as the attention it gets from qualified, quality cryptographers. And again, only when used in a library that can independently prove it's algorithm and implementation is sound - open source.

For everything important, there is OTP.

[PuffinBlue]

You're stating truisms really. And you trust OTP (quite rightly) - ergo you trust encryption. My personal trust point is properly implemented AES-256 with a slow hashing function.

[socceroos]

Correct. I wanted to qualify that you can't just 'trust encryption'. You must know what you're trusting, top to bottom; otherwise I would say that the trust is misplaced.