• gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Right, “maliciously sneak”, as in they’ve either gained access to make changes to the site ditectly, or they’ve found a way to inject their scripts to steal creds.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        And how is that any different from not having a password manager?

        Yes, if someone hijacks a domain they can get credentials intended for that domain. A password manager doesn’t make a huge difference here, because why would they make the site look any different than normal?

        • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          They don’t even have to be visible to the user and bitwarden will fill them in as soon as the page loads.

          I guess you didn’t read most of the comment.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            No, he did, here’s where the confusion is.

            Serinus is asking if the site in question needs to be compromised. In other words, can the attacker compromise a random site to fool your password manager into entering credentials for Gmail.com, or does the attacker have to compromise Gmail.com to do that?

            Because those two attacks are very different levels of complexity.

            And frankly, if someone compromises the site you’re actually trying to visit, there’s simply no defense against that at all.