Until mind reading becomes reality, nothing will ever be as secure as human memory.
You will never be one thousandth as good at securing hundreds of password as the most robust tools we have today. You may be good at remembering a couple of long, random passphrases. You can use those as a master password / encryption key.
The software mentioned in the article is not a particularly good or trustworthy password manager, so no it doesn't make sense to put it in the same lot as the actually-good ones.
Or to put it another way, if I come up with a crappy off brand version control software and backdoor it, that doesn't reflect badly on VCS, it reflects badly on me.
If I used a password manager, it would have to be on an airgapped and password protected system, making it essentially useless for me. For me, it’s easier to memorize a password/salting algorithm that generates unique passwords to the website or service I’m using, so that I don’t have to actually memorize any passwords—only the algorithm.
I also invite you to read my response above to someone else regarding the security of such an algorithm: with some examples, brute forcing an algorithm is easier than brute forcing a master password.
I'd argue even those who think they do probably don't.
To me the whole conversation sounds like this:
- An unknown, low security bank was broken into.
- This proves storing your money in a bank is a terrible idea! This is why I keep all my money in my home.
- No that's definitely a worse idea. Storing your money in a bank is the most secure way to keep your money. It's not infallible but-
- Yes but alone i don't have that much money... It's a lot more attractive if it's in a big oot everybody else's.
- Well no, most good banks invest a lot more in security than you ever would or could.
- No it's okay, because I put it in a box and I have a lock on it.
- Like a safe?
- No. I don't trust safes either.
Doesn’t this very article show otherwise?