What exactly does "Security through obscurity" means in the context of stroing unencrypted passwords?
I'm using a small program (I won't name it, to not enlarge enough large shame on its author) that uses my Google account for some tasks. I've noticed, that it stores my password in plain-text unencrypted file. Just a string, clearly seen to everyone, that can drag&drop it to Notepad or use
F3 in Total Commander.
I have risen a ticket asking program author to fix this ASAP. I haven't got any reply yet, but my issue got one comment, that includes only above mentioned link to Wikipedia's "Security through obscurity" page.
How should I understand this comment? Is it pro or con my issue? At first I thought, that it supports my statement of fixing this ASAP. But then I found a Eric Raymond's Fetchmail example (in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"), who refused to implement config file encryption (passwords are stored in config file for Fetchmail), claiming that it is up to the user to assure security by not letting anyone "from the outside" access that configuration file.
This statement (or refusal) is often brought as example of Security through obscurity. And looking from this point of view, I'm completely wrong and that program author is right. He do not have to implement encryption of file with my password, it can remain there, stored unencrypted and it is I, who is responsible for assuring security by not giving anyone access to this file or by deleting it each time I stop using that soft.
(another question is, how can I achieve this on system as unsecure as Windows itself?)
These seems to be in a complete opposition, to what I've been told and learnt for years, so I would like to ask more experienced developers, who is right here and how exactly I should understand "StO"?