When eCommerce companies want to optimize information security, password management tools enable users to create strong passwords for every login.

Better than a Master Pass
A two-factor authentication, a security process in which the user provides two means of identification, one of which is typically a physical token, such as a card, and the other of which is typically something memorized, such as a security code can drastically reduce online fraud such as identity theft . A common example of two-factor authenticationis a bank card: the card itself is the physical item and the personal identification number (PIN) is the data that goes with it.

LastPass 3.0 Premium and RoboForm, security downloads offer fingerprint-based authentication features that can be configured to any computer PC or mobile application.  Both are supported by the Google Authenticator mobile app for smart phone and device integration.

LastPass 3.0 is most powerful on-demand password manager on the market. LastPass 3.0 Premium includes mobile support and more features. Dashlane 2.0 is is not as robust, but includes a user-friendly interface. F-Secure Key is a free, one-device version of these top competitors. F-Secure Key is for exclusive use on an installed device, so password safe retention is dependent on proprietary use of the device itself. The application can be upgraded for a small annual fee.

Password Manager App Cross-Portability
F-Secure Key syncs with Mac, PC Android, and iOS devices simultaneously. A transient code is generated on mobile devices, in addition to the two-factor authentication default of the F-Secure Key master password security product.

Password capture and replay in case of lost credentials is made possible with a password manager. Integration of a password manager app with a browser allows a user to capture login credentials, and replay on revisit to a site. Dashlane, LastPass, Norton Identity Safe, Password Genie 4.0 offer continuous detection and management of password change events, automatically capturing credentials each time a new Web-based, service registration sign up is completed.

Other applications like F-Secure Key, KeePass, and My1login replay passwords via a bookmarklet, supported by any Java-equipped browser. KeePass ups the ante for would be keyloggers, with a unique replay technology.

Personal Data and Auto-Fill Forms
Most password managers fill username and password credentials into login forms automatically. Password managers also retain personal data for form fill interfaces with applications, and other HTML forms online. The RoboForm app is one of the most popular for its flexibility in multi-form password and personal data management, but the others also capture and reuse at least a portion of what has been entered in a form manually.

The 1Password app for Windows stores the most types of personal data for use to fill out forms. Dashlane, LastPass, and Password Genie store the various types of ID data used for form fill-in, like passport and driver's license numbers and other key details to HTML acknowledgement of discretionary password and personal information.

The Cost of Protection
LastPass Premium and Password Box are the lowest monthly password manager plans on the market, going for $1 a month. Annual plans offered by other password manager sources vary according to internal plan: Dashlane $20, F-Secure Key $16, and Password Genie, $15.
All password manager companies and their products may not be alike in the end.

Security checks on security products like password managers have become more sophisticated in response to product cross-portability and open source app interface volatility. Norton, RoboForm, KeePass, generate strong, random passwords on-demand. Some security procedures now require three-factor authentication, which involves possession of a physical token and a password, used in conjunction with biometricdata, such as finger-scanningor a voiceprint.

What are the best languages for getting into functional programming?

Computer Programming as a Career?

Attempting to create an intelligent entry about Linux for such a wide ranging audience is a bit like trying to compare a presentation on quantum mechanics for physicists while being readable by somebody with a junior high school education.

If you are a *NIX expert, then I suggest you keep on reading so you know how to explain this world to mere mortals.

I called it *nix for a reason. It represents a family of thinking. It is not unlike the difference between the language C and C++. Are there differences between the two? Certainly. And it is not like the difference between COBOL and C.

Years ago when I ran my own vo-tech school I would teach the students there are only two things in life. MS and *NIX. A friend of mine, a genius developer in her own right was aghast.

Python and Ruby, each with roots going back into the 1990s, are two of the most popular interpreted programming languages today. Ruby is most widely known as the language in which the ubiquitous Ruby on Rails web application framework is written, but it also has legions of fans that use it for things that have nothing to do with the web. Python is a big hit in the numerical and scientific computing communities at the present time, rapidly displacing such longtime stalwarts as R when it comes to these applications. It too, however, is also put to a myriad of other uses, and the two languages probably vie for the title when it comes to how flexible their users find them.

A Matter of Personality...

That isn't to say that there aren't some major, immediately noticeable, differences between the two programming tongues. Ruby is famous for its flexibility and eagerness to please; it is seen by many as a cleaned-up continuation of Perl's "Do What I Mean" philosophy, whereby the interpreter does its best to figure out the meaning of evening non-canonical syntactic constructs. In fact, the language's creator, Yukihiro Matsumoto, chose his brainchild's name in homage to that earlier language's gemstone-inspired moniker.

Python, on the other hand, takes a very different tact. In a famous Python Enhancement Proposal called "The Zen of Python," longtime Pythonista Tim Peters declared it to be preferable that there should only be a single obvious way to do anything. Python enthusiasts and programmers, then, generally prize unanimity of style over syntactic flexibility compared to those who choose Ruby, and this shows in the code they create. Even Python's whitespace-sensitive parsing has a feel of lending clarity through syntactical enforcement that is very much at odds with the much fuzzier style of typical Ruby code.

For example, Python's much-admired list comprehension feature serves as the most obvious way to build up certain kinds of lists according to initial conditions:

a = [x**3 for x in range(10,20)]
b = [y for y in a if y % 2 == 0]

first builds up a list of the cubes of all of the numbers between 10 and 19 (yes, 19), assigning the result to 'a'. A second list of those elements in 'a' which are even is then stored in 'b'. One natural way to do this in Ruby is probably:

a = (10..19).map {|x| x ** 3}
b = a.select {|y| y.even?}

but there are a number of obvious alternatives, such as:

a = (10..19).collect do |x|
x ** 3
end

b = a.find_all do |y|
y % 2 == 0
end

It tends to be a little easier to come up with equally viable, but syntactically distinct, solutions in Ruby compared to Python, even for relatively simple tasks like the above. That is not to say that Ruby is a messy language, either; it is merely that it is somewhat freer and more forgiving than Python is, and many consider Python's relative purity in this regard a real advantage when it comes to writing clear, easily understandable code.

And Somewhat One of Performance

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!