Vinod Kumar

Enpass team member
  • Content count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Vinod Kumar last won the day on April 26

Vinod Kumar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About Vinod Kumar

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Hi @lucas , Can't provide an ETA. The library shouldn't create a problem as webdav specs are not changed after its depreciation. The problem can be due to many other reasons including server implementation of Webdav. Please try webdav sync in desktop version of Enpass. Also if possible, can you provide us a demo account?
  2. Hi @Arthur Rump, Thanks for providing really helpful pointers. We will be including Windows Hello support in next major version.
  3. Hi @lucas, Yes, we are moving to another webdav implementation (c++ libcurl based) in next major version.
  4. Hi @lucas, I think you are pointing towards the recent SHA-1 collision attack. PBKDF2 in SQLCipher use HMAC-SHA1 and it is still secure. Both are not quite the same thing.
  5. Hi @ctrl_alt_pasta, What @Ivarson said is certainly right. Enpass doesn't do any security validation for you. Your browser is equipped with the best tools to do any security validations about identity of host. Constant updates are provided to guard against spoofing attacks like address bar spoofing. So, one should always pay attention to browser address bar warnings for broken or invalid certificates. However before autofilling, Enpass always match the domain name for saved items and shows only relevant items. This protects you against phishing attacks with look-alike domains.
  6. Sqlcipher has api 'PRAGMA kdf_iter' to configure number of iterations for needed.
  7. Hi @Unsay, The refactoring process has been started as per plan with new vault architecture that can support multiple vaults and many requested features that were not possible with older architecture. Side-by-side, we have fixed a lot of pending bugs for upcoming update which is main cause of slow release cycle as of now. We have also done a feasibility test for a separate core headless app, but as we use Qt in many places in the core part also, it is still going to load Qt libraries at startup and hence no improvement in startup impact. So, we still continue to use our current model (core and UI in same app). However we are finding ways to reduce startup impact as per Microsoft guidelines https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/startup-apps. Thanks
  8. @yce Transferring your master password or a derived key to server is a very bad idea (which is required in case of sqlcipher for php). It is best to do any encryption/decryption related stuff in a native app. If that is not a choice, next best would be to encrypt/decrypt on client side with javascript. User can be authenticated with server without sending master password using Secure Remote Password like protocol and encrypted data can be fetched from server and decrypt it in javascript.
  9. Hi @rerx and @gaetawoo, Thanks for writing in. We do confirm the bug in the password field. It got introduced in a version which allowed to see passwords by tapping on eye button while editing. Our tests runs use standard Google Keyboard and so the issue was not spotted earlier. We have fixed this issue and will release an update soon. As I mentioned earlier, the current Fingerprint implementation in Android is a very secure. Though in iOS we switch to Master password after three wrong attempts from Touch ID but security wise no such requirement arises in Android. A person having possession of your fake fingerprint can unlock your phone and can do lot of nasty things (including get into Enpass in first attempt after unlocking device with that). If one is super sensitive about this, he should not turn on Fingerprint from Enpass (which is by default, off). We always consider you valuable suggestions, which is why Enpass reached so far. We will consider to implement your suggestion for Fingerprint disable as an optional setting in future. Cheers,
  10. Hi @cimm, Glad it works for you. To set these environment variables automatically at login, please add them to $HOME/.profile export QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR=1 export QT_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTORS=0.5 Cheers
  11. Hi @jasn, Thanks for trying Enpass on gentoo. You should install "lsof" as a dependency to fix browser connection error. Also, the proper way to autostart Enpass on system reboot is to enable "Autostart on system startup" option in Enpass settings. Other methods for auto-starting will lead to launch incorrect binary without properly initialing Enpass environment and hence "QSQLCIPHER driver not loaded" error. Cheers
  12. Hi @klktrk, You are right, It should be https://dl.sinew.in/mac/setup/Enpass-5.2.1.dmg. Our server is still supporting both protocols for legacy reasons. However, Enpass.app is properly code-signed and you can check verify signing certificate details with codesign -dv --verbos=4 /Applications/Enpass.app It should validate with following details: Authority=Developer ID Application: Sinew Software Systems (7ADB8CC6TF) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Also, Mac Gatekeeper(with protective settings) will automatically block the launch of app it is not code signed properly. Cheers!
  13. Hi @Topa, You should set QT_BEARER_POLL_TIMEOUT variable with -1 value. QT_BEARER_POLL_TIMEOUT should come under variable column and -1 should be under Value column. A screenshot is attached for your reference.
  14. Hi @cimm, Enpass does have HDPI support. In most cases it works out of the box, but sometimes you might need to adjust a few environment variables to make it work. e.g. Please try adding following environment variables to force for 150% scale on your primary display. QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR=1 QT_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTORS=1.5
  15. Hi @Airstar, Yes, you're right that TPM 2.0 is required for new hardware but api support for TPM 1.2 has its own limitations, and the one which is restricting the Full time Hello support on Enpass is lack of TPM key attestation info when asked for using the Microsoft provided APIs. TPM key attestation is a protocol that cryptographically proves that a key is TPM-bound. This type of attestation can be used to guarantee that a certain cryptographic operation occurred in the TPM of a particular computer. We use KeyCredentialManager.RequestCreateAsync() API to get authenticated encryption keys to protect the Master password. Now, we need to check where those keys are stored. It can be on a Hardware TPM or a simulated software TPM. To get this attestation information, we use GetAttestationAsync(), which is generated by the TPM chip. Unfortunately, Above api attestation information is only available TPM 2.0 or higher. So, in case of TPM 1.2 (one in your laptop) or a simulated software one, there will be no attestation information. We have no means to distinguish between a TPM 1.2 or software TPM. So limitation of API is the only reason that we support full-time Hello unlocking only on devices where keys guaranteed to be bound to hardware TPM. You can read about the related information in section 3.1 and 3.4 on https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/security/microsoft-passport#311-attestation Hope it helps!