tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post849252290793057757..comments2023-12-12T18:59:45.550+01:00Comments on Security Nirvana: The Final Word on the LinkedIn Leaksecuritynirvanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11264687350187854173noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-46276607238894079032012-12-06T12:57:11.794+01:002012-12-06T12:57:11.794+01:00Think of a song/poem/quote, take the first letters...Think of a song/poem/quote, take the first letters of the words and replace the characters in h@x0r 5p3@k... no online strength checker will ever tell you the true "crackability" of your password. <br /><br />Thing is you need to change the passwords every three months or less so when you have logins for 5+ sites/services you're pretty much screwed... so maybe using a digital signature of sorts will be more secure as in 4096 string stored on a smart card ... but what happens when you lose it ? <br /><br />I guess what I'm trying to say is keep it reasonable. If anyone put their mind to cracking your password "GOD" will not protect you ... or any other password for that matter ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-74825463084266062062012-12-05T13:24:46.302+01:002012-12-05T13:24:46.302+01:00NEW RULE: Sites should not allow the use of their ...NEW RULE: Sites should not allow the use of their site name or other common base words in user’s passwords.<br /><br />If I'm forced to use difficult passwords on forum sites like twitter, I end up registering a new account every time I want to comment something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-4289811912463054382012-12-05T12:55:25.023+01:002012-12-05T12:55:25.023+01:00A handful of people also went as far as to use pas...A handful of people also went as far as to use passwords like “linkedinpass” or “thisismylinkedinpassword.” I’ll take one guess at what their bank account password is.<br /><br />I use that kind of passwords for sites like linkedin and others I don't consider a very big problem if it's hacked. For forums I often use a simple password of just a couple letters, linkedin a bit higher security, facebook a level up, bank and financial stuff a level up from that again. Using difficult passwords is troublesome, so I only use it when I have to, but when it's important, I do use it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-77384576629637550092012-08-27T07:23:16.558+02:002012-08-27T07:23:16.558+02:00Basically - passwords are no good anymore. If you...Basically - passwords are no good anymore. If your provider doesn't have some kind of two-factor protection available, hassle them to get it!yawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12862804413501633609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-81765293219431159202012-08-22T22:59:58.832+02:002012-08-22T22:59:58.832+02:00This remind me the XKCD's password strength : ...This remind me the XKCD's password strength : http://xkcd.com/936/ and his explanations : http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 <br /><br />Lots of people wrote he was right, like : Steve Gibson from the Security Now podcast did a lot of work in this arena and found that this password "D0g....................." is harder to break than this password "PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9". http://www.explainxkcd.com/2011/08/10/password-strength/ <br /><br />Others differ, like on this interesting thread, mentioning http://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php, but which fail to let people know wether XKCD's right, or not : How accurate is this XKCD comic from August 10, 2011? http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase <br /><br />What do you think about this entropy stuff ? is it better to create non-existing terms, or a long password based on non-common sentences/words ? manhackhttp://twitter.com/manhacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-71306617012514941122012-07-03T18:39:15.171+02:002012-07-03T18:39:15.171+02:00Wow never knew that was possible:
http://security....Wow never knew that was possible:<br />http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6919/levraging-a-shell-from-sql-injection<br /><br />So it's more or less pointless to encrypt.Stevehttp://www.tobtu.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-56173197000652144702012-07-03T14:15:25.537+02:002012-07-03T14:15:25.537+02:00Steve, "only SQL injection" is kind of a...Steve, "only SQL injection" is kind of an odd thing to say. You can leverage SQL injection to do much more than just dump the database. In the best (worst?) scenario, you can use it to execute arbitrary code or get a shell. And if you can execute arbitrary code as the httpd user then you have the exact same privileges as the httpd, making reversible encryption utterly worthless.<br /><br />I also concur with Steven Alexander's comment, which goes along with the SDLC risk management process I mentioned toward the end of the article.epixoiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02532325931226796404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-72512421569150346212012-07-02T21:59:20.242+02:002012-07-02T21:59:20.242+02:00If you're already using bcrypt, scrypt, or PBK...If you're already using bcrypt, scrypt, or PBKDF2 and teaching your developers to prevent SQL injection, then I don't see the point of using a local parameter (key, salt) on the web server as a further hedge against SQL injection. If your tolerance for cracked passwords is that low, then you should consider offloading authentication to a separate server and/or a hardware security module (HSM) so that the local parameter is never accessible to the web server. This will provide additional protection against offline password cracking regardless of the type of access the attacker is able to obtain to the web server.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08515783026293944881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-13384861736259675202012-07-02T21:38:55.845+02:002012-07-02T21:38:55.845+02:00Hi Steve! Nice to see you are secretly watching us...Hi Steve! Nice to see you are secretly watching us. :-)<br /><br />I don't know if you are on Twitter as well, but the discussion has started. Initial problem; if an attacker uses SQLi through your application that automatically decrypts the bcrypt data upon extraction from the DB, you really don't add much security to the mix, if any at all. Please see @skradel @pdp11hacker @klingsen @troyhunt @chrismckee @securityninja :-)securitynirvanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264687350187854173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-49289304090524517702012-07-02T19:27:55.371+02:002012-07-02T19:27:55.371+02:00Is it common for an attacker to only be able to do...Is it common for an attacker to only be able to do SQL injections?<br /><br />Because there is a simple solution to SQL injection only attacks. Hash then encrypt the password. You can then just store the key in a file that only the web server can read. Then even if the database gets dumped the attacker would need to have access to the file system or be able to dump code to find the key.<br /><br />If it is of interest to anyone here's an implementation of it in PHP: http://www.tobtu.com/encryptbcrypt.phpStevehttp://www.tobtu.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-49907978140059611332012-07-02T02:11:40.490+02:002012-07-02T02:11:40.490+02:00@blazer2x, words such as 'fireyred' and &#...@blazer2x, words such as 'fireyred' and 'redjim' were both omitted in the method i used. and yes, i did count both gray and grey in the count for gray :)epixoiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02532325931226796404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-13876765767242627762012-07-01T16:50:34.716+02:002012-07-01T16:50:34.716+02:00@Jeremi Gosney
Thanks for the clear explanation. ...@Jeremi Gosney<br /><br />Thanks for the clear explanation. I was purely counting all instances of colors which obviously is inaccurate.<br /><br />It makes sense that you are only counting base words. Though I have a question, how are words such as 'fireryred' or say color+name 'redjim' treated as?<br /><br />Suggestion: You may also want to count gray with its alternate spelling 'grey'. US/UK spelling differences I believe.blazer2xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-85492554207568569672012-07-01T11:06:11.562+02:002012-07-01T11:06:11.562+02:00I would make public the remaining 10% because the ...I would make public the remaining 10% because the passwords in this list would be statistically important compared to the hashes cracked using your existing word lists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-40446058050586921612012-06-30T23:00:53.345+02:002012-06-30T23:00:53.345+02:00@blazer2x on twitter just asked the following ques...@blazer2x on twitter just asked the following question: "I just ran our list through color analysis, seems quite different to your published one. Is yours case sensitive?"<br /><br />No, it's not case sensitive. However, I'm curious as to how you ran your list through color analysis, because counting colors is a really difficult task. <br /><br />First, there are lots of words that contain the name of a color that have little to do with the color at all, at least from a psychological standpoint: words like whitesox, redwings, bluejay, greenacres, purplehaze, greyhound, etc.<br /><br />Second, there are far too many words that contain the letters r-e-d in them: fired, hired, adored, fred, bored, etc etc.<br /><br />So you see, you can't just do e.g. "grep -ci red plains" because that would be wildly inaccurate. <br /><br />So then how did we get an accurate count? First I ran the plains through my "baseword extraction algorithm" (sounds sexy, but it's really just a long sed script), and then I counted the number of times each color appears as a baseword /by itself/, e.g. "grep -c '^blue$' basewords"<br /><br />I then did some manual analysis -- which made me want to pull my hair out -- to see if there were any that I missed, and added a few stragglers to the count.<br /><br />So that's how I counted the colors, which I'm fairly confident is much more accurate than some other methods out there. I'd be interested to hear if there's a flaw in my method though!epixoiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02532325931226796404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-64580882467306564312012-06-30T22:44:20.404+02:002012-06-30T22:44:20.404+02:00Gianluca, I wouldn't be very happy if every si...Gianluca, I wouldn't be very happy if every site/service I used told me I had to use a certain password, and that I couldn't change it. I think SAML or OAuth are more elegant long-term solutions. Even better if the identity provider offers two-factor auth.epixoiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02532325931226796404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-31061335951031822122012-06-30T16:45:44.381+02:002012-06-30T16:45:44.381+02:00C'mon guys, the lesson is: let the site choose...C'mon guys, the lesson is: let the site choose the password for the user!<br />It's trivial and even easier to implementGianluca Ghettinihttp://www.gianlucaghettini.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-20646639218012352222012-06-30T12:40:31.117+02:002012-06-30T12:40:31.117+02:00Francois: i do have more masked hashes cracked tha...Francois: i do have more masked hashes cracked than unmasked, but also realize that the masked hashes were the majority of the hashes, and the majority of the hashes -- both masked and unmasked -- were easy to crack. but, i still have a fair amount of masked hashes left to crack (about 200k.) <br /><br />i will also add that i have a little bit of inside information on the subject; although i won't dive into particulars, i will state that a source whom i trust that was close to the incident informed me that dwdm (the one who originally posted both the linkedin and eharmony hashes on insidepro's forum) was paid to crack those hashes, and decided to crowdsource them instead of cracking them himself. so that throws another wrench in the 'masked hashes were already cracked' theory.<br /><br />Anonymous: yeah i'm still toying with the remaining hashes. been brainstorming with atom (lead hashcat dev) and trying out some new ideas.<br /><br />as far as that 6GB wordlist goes, some parts of it are public, sure. the rest is pretty much compromised of almost every password i've ever personally cracked from various sites. skullsecurity has some good public lists to get you started.epixoiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02532325931226796404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-46684552130279055332012-06-30T11:46:40.159+02:002012-06-30T11:46:40.159+02:00Fascinating read. Are you still working on the 10%...Fascinating read. Are you still working on the 10% you have not cracked or are you sharing them for other analysis?<br /><br />Also, that 6 GB password file you have - public anywhere? ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400370148915075091.post-75561773463944547032012-06-30T06:09:09.629+02:002012-06-30T06:09:09.629+02:00"Initial speculation and murmurings around va..."Initial speculation and murmurings around various hacker circles concluded that these mangled hashes must have been the ones already cracked by those who perpetrated the breach. However, such theories do not hold much water when taken into account that 670,781 of the mangled hashes are duplicates of the remaining, non-mangled hashes."<br />These speculations rely on the fact that ^00000's hashes look far more easier to crack.<br />I have found only 2/3 of the passwords, and 85% of the 00000. Maybe it's pure speculation, but as you possess more results, maybe you can verify an "easy" thing: just count the number of passwords composed with special characters in the ^00000-hashes and those in the non-^00000, from what I've seen the difference is noticeable, though I don't have as many passwords than you to make this guess.<br />If the hypothesis that the 00000 passwords are those that has been already cracked, we can try to analyse what tools the initial hacker used to crack (rainbow tables? user/login informations?), and maybe we can produce a kind of profile of him (and maybe more, but then it won't be the final words on LinkedIn leak ;-) )<br />My 2 cents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com