> You keep saying “passwords” then saying you’re not taking about “passwords” and then saying I misunderstood you because I mentioned passwords yet I never actually mentioned passwords.

You also keep using the word "password" while claiming you are not using the word "password" like you did right now.

And of course what i just wrote, just like what you just wrote, is not an argument at all since this isn't about the existence of the word "password" in the text that was typed, but of what you are claiming.

From the very beginning i only used passwords as an example of something that can be placed in the secret clipboard. In the first reply to you i already made that clear - which is also something i pointed out in another reply later.

> Is it possible that you’re conflating “secrets” with “passwords”? Because they’re not the same. The latter is a subgroup of the former

Please read what i write, i do not conflate the two and this should have been obvious from the first reply i made to you where i write that the source for the data to be placed in the secure clipboard can come from a secrets manager.

> My point was what you discussed is a crappy solution that has already been superseded with secrets stores to solve this over arching problem space. Thus your solution should incorporate secrets stores instead of reinventing them but badly.

And this is why you do not understand what i wrote. Secret stores do not solve the same problems that the secret clipboard i described does.

> 1. You’ve conflated “secrets” and “passwords”.

As i already wrote, i did not, you just made that assumption. Even if i had no idea what they'd be it'd be a very stupid mistake to make since the name is practically self-describing in context.

> You didn’t realise that secrets stores have a TTL. That alone literally solves 80% of the problem you’ve got and does so right out of the box.

This has nothing to do with what i describe, aside perhaps from using it as a way for a secrets manager to implement the secure clipboard API - like i already mentioned several replies ago in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30220474

> You conflated password managers and secret stores

I did not, i only brought up password managers as an example which i quickly made clear that they were only just one source for the data to be placed in the secure clipboard in the first reply i made to you.

> But the fact I had to make that explanation is telling

It is only telling that you do not bother to read and understand what the others are writing.

> You forgot that browsers often use system APIs for password storage.

...no? I never forgot anything like that, this is again an assumption you made. The only time i referred to a browser was for my browser and i already wrote that i only did to that, not to any potential browser that could exist. I have used other browsers in the past, like Safari, that does use system APIs for password storage (or at least that is what i assumed Safari was doing, i never really digged down on that).

> benefit of the doubt

Instead of trying to doubt me, you may actually want to try and understand what i am writing.

> but you cannot deny that you did post earlier that you wanted an external API (with regards to browsers)

What i describe is a different API because the functionality i describe is not the same as what a secrets store would provide. This is what i am trying to explain from the beginning.

> 5. You also claim that you know every single library that is installed on you desktop.

I never claimed such a thing, this is yet another assumption you make.

The only thing i claimed was that my setup does not have a secrets manager that other applications can use, like you originally described "Linux" having. Which is why i wrote what you took as pedantry, that Linux isn't just a single setup and setups without a secrets manager do exist - and brought up mine.

While i do not know every single library that is on my system, i do have a decent idea on what is in it there since i try to pay attention to what i install.

So unless you consider having libsqlite3 and libgcrypt available as shared objects passes as a secrets store API that applications can use (they can always pester me for a password/something every time they need to access the data), i am certain i do not have one.

> suffice to say you’ve not exactly redeemed yourself as an authority on this topic

I never claimed to be an authority on this topic either. In fact if you were to ask me, i'd be the first one to say i do not really know much about security (and it isn't really a topic i am interested), which is why i mainly focused on the functionality from a UX perspective and how people would use it rather than how the underlying system would be implemented.

> The point you keep missing is that adding a new API breaks clipboard-like workflows anyway.

It doesn't, the existing clipboard API would still be there. From the very first comment i brought that up, i mentioned that the secret clipboard would exist alongside the existing one as to not break anything that currently works.

It is even right after the bit you quoted in your first reply to me.

Here: "IMO a better solution that wouldn't break existing clipboard usage is to have a second "secure" clipboard that you can lock as tight as you want. Then password managers would copy data to that and text editors and browsers can have a "Copy Sensitive Data" (or something better worded) in addition to "Copy" that will place data there.

In fact...

> why not build your new API on top of a secrets store, give that data a short TTL and leverage already proven technology.

...I even mentioned in another reply that what you describe could implement the API i describe.

> The entire process can be streamlined from a user perspective so it even looks like a clipboard.

Yes, like i already wrote in my original message: making something that, for lack of a better word, is essentially a "secure" separate clipboard, something that looks and behaves like a clipboard. The never specified how it would be implemented, only how it'd behave. I only wrote "lock as tight as you want with explicit permissions for reading it, notifications for writing to it and whatever else you want". I left the implementation up in the air.

Would it be implemented by a secrets store or some other service that communicates with a secrets store and sets up some low TTL or outright destroys the data after it has been pasted? Doesn't matter, it wasn't what i was describing, that would be some implementation detail.

Which is why i kept on and on and on and on repeating over and over that what i describe is not about secrets stores and is irrelevant, aside from perhaps having one implement it.

> The issue is you don’t understand how secrets managers work so defaulting to the position that they are clearly not suited.

I understand what they are used for and what they are used for is not for the functionality that i describe (there might be one that does have something similar that i do not know about but as i do not know it, i only refer to the concept in general), otherwise i wouldn't bring up the idea in the first place.

> Anyway, I can’t see this argument being resolved. You’re not going to research the topic and I’m not going to concede that you’re not just reinventing the wheel but badly. So maybe we just give up here?

If you are so hellbent in avoiding to understand what i write, sure, it doesn't sound like there is a reason to continue.