I use roboform. To keep my 3 machines in sync I use SVN client(http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/) for source control and the data files are hosted at http://opensvn.csie.org/. PM me if anyone needs more information.

Kanosh said:Hello:
I'd like to ask everyone - especially those with multiple online bank accounts and/or who have done AOR's - how you manage passwords. I've searched the FW forums but have not found anything on this topic. Right now my passwords are either stored in my head or on a sheet of paper. I'm wondering if there is a better way. I've been intrigued by roboform (www.roboform.com) and a quick google search reveals quite a few pw management programs that I've never heard of as well. Obviously, I have some issues with giving up my passwords to a program, but the convenience factor might win me over. Also, anyone have any old-fashioned (non high-tech) ways to remember a password?

what about Yodlee? You can store your passwords online and have access to them anywhere. I haven't used it yet a friend told me about it. Not sure how safe/secure it is.

My Blackberry 7130c comes with a password keeper application.

Your post just reminded me of it, and I plan on using it. There's a master password to open the application, and once you're in, you have a list of the sites/titles you entered with the associated usernames and passwords.

Neat since I always have my phone with me and if I were to lose it, there's a password on the application anyway.

disable SID, WEP or WPA, MAC filtering

repeat: WEP is not secure, WEP is not secure (at all)

Use WPA

alexnyc said:disable SID, WEP or WPA, MAC filtering

repeat: WEP is not secure, WEP is not secure (at all)

Use WPA

some people are too cheap to buy a newer router

teplitsa said:
I'm also thinking of buying into Vista next year, but only the 64 bit. Most of the problems are due to the 32 bit x86 instruction set. Believe it or not, the basic instructions your PC uses were made by Intel in the 1970's as a contract to make a calculator for some Japaneese company. I've read comments by programmers that it's so bad that no amount of patching by MS or anyone else will fix the security problems and that the best solution is to go 64 bit just because the instruction set was made with the Internet in mind.

Whoever made those comments surely is not a "programmer" of any kind. Security issues such as those encountered by Microsoft and others have absolutely nothing to do with the instruction set architecture of the CPU. Yes, the x86 instruction set is very old, and the trend in most CPU architectures over the past decade or so has been to use RISC instruction sets instead of the much more complex scheme that x86 processors use. However, the 64-bit instruction set was not "made with the Internet in mind." CPU instructions accomplish tasks at such a low level that there is no way they can be "designed for the Internet," and they absolutely do not have any correlation to the number of security problems that have popped up over the past few years; that assertion is, to put it mildly, absurd. If the ISA is responsible for security issues, then obviously no other operating system running on an x86 would be secure either; however, you'll find other OS implementations (BSD, some flavors of Linux) that are very secure. Security issues, instead, are caused by incorrect software design; this responsibility falls squarely on the software engineers who produce the product. The above comment is nothing but absolute misinformation, probably originated by someone who had an interest in adoption of 64-bit processors.

jasonroehm said:teplitsa said:
I'm also thinking of buying into Vista next year, but only the 64 bit. Most of the problems are due to the 32 bit x86 instruction set. Believe it or not, the basic instructions your PC uses were made by Intel in the 1970's as a contract to make a calculator for some Japaneese company. I've read comments by programmers that it's so bad that no amount of patching by MS or anyone else will fix the security problems and that the best solution is to go 64 bit just because the instruction set was made with the Internet in mind.

Whoever made those comments surely is not a "programmer" of any kind. Security issues such as those encountered by Microsoft and others have absolutely nothing to do with the instruction set architecture of the CPU. Yes, the x86 instruction set is very old, and the trend in most CPU architectures over the past decade or so has been to use RISC instruction sets instead of the much more complex scheme that x86 processors use. However, the 64-bit instruction set was not "made with the Internet in mind." CPU instructions accomplish tasks at such a low level that there is no way they can be "designed for the Internet," and they absolutely do not have any correlation to the number of security problems that have popped up over the past few years; that assertion is, to put it mildly, absurd. If the ISA is responsible for security issues, then obviously no other operating system running on an x86 would be secure either; however, you'll find other OS implementations (BSD, some flavors of Linux) that are very secure. Security issues, instead, are caused by incorrect software design; this responsibility falls squarely on the software engineers who produce the product. The above comment is nothing but absolute misinformation, probably originated by someone who had an interest in adoption of 64-bit processors.

read it on slashdot

biggest problem with MS is buffer overruns and I've read that the 64bit instruction set makes it a lot easier to program for checking for buffer overruns than x86. That's what I meant designed for the internet. 10 years ago no one cared about buffer overruns. Now you have script kiddies nmapping whole subnets looking for unpatched boxes to hack and shady websites trying to install code on your machine

Linux has just as much updates as windows. i used to play with redhat and everyday they released an update for some package. And since it's only used on the desktop by people who know what they are doing there is no sense in trying to hack a tiny portion of the user base that knows how to avoid being hacked.

teplitsa said:jasonroehm said:teplitsa said:
I'm also thinking of buying into Vista next year, but only the 64 bit. Most of the problems are due to the 32 bit x86 instruction set. Believe it or not, the basic instructions your PC uses were made by Intel in the 1970's as a contract to make a calculator for some Japaneese company. I've read comments by programmers that it's so bad that no amount of patching by MS or anyone else will fix the security problems and that the best solution is to go 64 bit just because the instruction set was made with the Internet in mind.

Whoever made those comments surely is not a "programmer" of any kind. Security issues such as those encountered by Microsoft and others have absolutely nothing to do with the instruction set architecture of the CPU. Yes, the x86 instruction set is very old, and the trend in most CPU architectures over the past decade or so has been to use RISC instruction sets instead of the much more complex scheme that x86 processors use. However, the 64-bit instruction set was not "made with the Internet in mind." CPU instructions accomplish tasks at such a low level that there is no way they can be "designed for the Internet," and they absolutely do not have any correlation to the number of security problems that have popped up over the past few years; that assertion is, to put it mildly, absurd. If the ISA is responsible for security issues, then obviously no other operating system running on an x86 would be secure either; however, you'll find other OS implementations (BSD, some flavors of Linux) that are very secure. Security issues, instead, are caused by incorrect software design; this responsibility falls squarely on the software engineers who produce the product. The above comment is nothing but absolute misinformation, probably originated by someone who had an interest in adoption of 64-bit processors.

read it on slashdot

biggest problem with MS is buffer overruns and I've read that the 64bit instruction set makes it a lot easier to program for checking for buffer overruns than x86. That's what I meant designed for the internet. 10 years ago no one cared about buffer overruns. Now you have script kiddies nmapping whole subnets looking for unpatched boxes to hack and shady websites trying to install code on your machine

Linux has just as much updates as windows. i used to play with redhat and everyday they released an update for some package. And since it's only used on the desktop by people who know what they are doing there is no sense in trying to hack a tiny portion of the user base that knows how to avoid being hacked.

It sounds like you are talking about the NX bit, not a difference in instruction sets...

alexnyc said:disable SID, WEP or WPA, MAC filtering

repeat: WEP is not secure, WEP is not secure (at all)

Use WPA

repeat: WPA is not secure, WPA is not secure (at all)

Use a cable.

I store all my passwords on a piece of software written by a Ukrainian company. They say everything is secure.