Sorry for this late response. I finally used fpm2, because I use mate desktop and fpm2 is on gtk so it give me a better integration. fpm2 have less option than Keepassx, but have they I need. I use only Debian, so I don't care if it doesn't work on Windows or Mac :) fpm2 use also aes encryption, I think security is the same with the same encryption.
Thanks you all 2013/6/7 Tyler D <tdo...@gmail.com> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Mérof 42 <mero...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks you both, I'm going to test it. > > It seem to be better than zsafe, with more options. > > I just dislike qt library, but is a different story > > > > A question about keepassx, I saw it use AES 256bits to store password, > is my > > password safe if somebody steal my laptop per example? > > Off course I plan to use a sufficient strong master password. > > I'm not really familiar with encryption, and I don't know witch > encryption > > provide sufficient security. > > Another recommendation for KeePassX from me as well. It works on > Linux, Mac, and Windows. That was one of the more important selling > points for me. > > As far as the safety of a KeePassX database goes, I think you are > fine. I too am not a mathematical computer wizard of science theory, > so I suggest this post: > > http://serverfault.com/questions/51895/are-128-and-256bit-aes-encryption-considered-weak > > I also wanted to point out that you can set up a two-factor > authentication scheme. Meaning, in addition to requiring that a > password (something you know) be supplied, you can also require that a > key file (something you have) be specified. That doesn't really have > to do with security (your "sufficient security") but rather > authentication. Since there can be an additional authentication > factor, the likelihood of someone being able to brute force their way > in to your password database are made lower. >
