- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- Millions of people use password managers. They make accessing online services and bank accounts easy and simplify credit card payments.
- Many providers promise absolute security – the data is said to be so encrypted that even the providers themselves cannot access it.
- However, researchers from ETH Zurich have shown that it is possible for hackers to view and even change passwords.


This comment shows that you know less about computers, than you may think. You can definetly make end to end encryption work using a Website. JavaScript runs client side. So as long as you trust the encryption algorithm (which in elements case you definetly can, because it is OSS), the encryption is safe and your unencrypted data never leaves the device.
The point is you are trusting the JavaScript that the server delivered to you. If the server is compromised, it hands you compromised JavaScript and you’re screwed. It’s the exact same thing as going to evil.com and entering your master password. I think that you inherently understand that evil.com is untrusted. However, if passwordmanager.com is compromised by the same people who own evil.com. there’s really no difference.
Yes of course you CAN make it safe in theory, but unless you run the web interface locally or on your own server, you cant be certain that the javascript delivered to you from the hoster hasnt been modified. Its like having autoupdates on but you have zero control over when or how the updates take place, because every time you open the page it could be different code from the last time.
How do you know that the code on elements github repo is actually the same code that you get delivered from your homeserver that is hosting the web client? Your homeserver can just modify the web clients code however it wants and deliver a backdoored or faulty version to you. Which means you dont just have to trust the open source code, but also the admin who is managing the homeserver and also the hosting provider.
Is this really so hard to understand? Literally the entire client is delivered on demand from a remote server, obviously that is insecure if you dont control that server.