“Does that mean that basic security should not be in a company's mind”
I wasn’t suggesting it shouldn’t be. My point is that the article’s headline is overly dramatic: Mailbox.app is not a complete security failure because of one hack that requires physical access. Given that Mailbox only supports GMail, I’d be more worried to put my email in Google’s hands than worrying over someone grabbing my phone out of mine.
“Mailbox is BIG. We are not talking of an average app here!”
Mailbox.app is a free app that has been downloaded a couple of million times, I wouldn’t call it “BIG” yet. It’s very new, it’s still on version 1, so it’s not expected to be perfect.
> Mailbox.app is not a complete security failure because of one hack that requires physical access
The problem is that we take mobile devices with us every place we go. So physical access is not difficult to obtain.
This really is a big deal primarily because the developers of Mailbox.app did not take steps to even obfuscate the stored data...which would deter all but the most determined of attackers.
I wasn’t suggesting it shouldn’t be. My point is that the article’s headline is overly dramatic: Mailbox.app is not a complete security failure because of one hack that requires physical access. Given that Mailbox only supports GMail, I’d be more worried to put my email in Google’s hands than worrying over someone grabbing my phone out of mine.
“Mailbox is BIG. We are not talking of an average app here!”
Mailbox.app is a free app that has been downloaded a couple of million times, I wouldn’t call it “BIG” yet. It’s very new, it’s still on version 1, so it’s not expected to be perfect.