Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: BBC/GCHQ password advice  (Read 1810 times)

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
BBC/GCHQ password advice
« on: September 12, 2015, 12:06:03 AM »

Well worth reading, from GCHQ no less, according to the Beeb...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34221843

Only trouble is, it is pretty much exactly what I have been preaching on Kitz's forums for years...

"Complex passwords counterproductive, because people write them down".
"Passwords are rarely cracked by brute force"
"Regular changes carry no real benefits"

It is so close to my own own oft-stated opinions that I ought to feel very flattered.   But being GCHQ, should that be a mixture of paranoia too, should I worry what else, of the nonsense I have posted,  they have taken on board?    :D

Joking (as I am) apart, have to say I agree.   But then, I would.   Read for yourself, lest I have slanted the article :)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 12:15:33 AM by sevenlayermuddle »
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7389
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2015, 12:18:09 AM »

they have some valid points but complex passwords are good when using a password manager.

I think they forgot tho that recently millions of passwords got cracked by brute force on that dating site due to their developers removing the powerful bcrypt hashing algorithm which slows down password attempts.

It really annoys me as some forums I am on force a password change every 30 days, no real benefit at all.

Then there is the websites that block copy and pasting, again useless with no real benefit.

Thankfully google and mozilla have now blocked websites from disabling autocomplete on password forms. Which was another useless security feature. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=956906

This post made me smile :) http://www.troyhunt.com/2014/05/the-cobra-effect-that-is-disabling.html
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 12:22:30 AM by Chrysalis »
Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2015, 11:52:35 AM »

I think they forgot tho that recently millions of passwords got cracked by brute force on that dating site due to their developers removing the powerful bcrypt hashing algorithm which slows down password attempts.


Another way to look at it is, these passwords weren't cracked using brute force, rather they were cracked because brute force wasn't necessary, owing to them simply being hashed rather than properly encrypted.

In my opinion, the real point is that unless you are a specially attractive target, ie a head of state or whatever, the chances of anybody taking the trouble to brute-force an encrypted password are small.   Hence there is no real benefit in choosing complex passwords just because they might resist brute force.   And long complex passwords would also be easily hacked in the example given, where merely hashed.

Another gripe of mine, are the browsers and mail Apps that 'remember' passwords, and then create an illusion that they are stored securely, by 'starring' out the characters.   These passwords are very often easily discoverable, no brute force at all, should anyone manage to steal your HD.    The reason they must be discoverable is that the browser itself must be able to retrieve the original text, so that it can be submitted over the (encrypted) login dialogue.

Mozilla Thunderbird (maybe other products too) will actually display stored passwords, in plain text, in the settings menus.   They are correct to do so since obscuring them, or hiding them, would simply confer a false sense of security.
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2078
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2015, 12:43:19 PM »

Huh? Hashing is not reversible. The password is the input to a hash function, which outputs a number. There's not really any other way to crack them besides brute force.

Here's the MD5 hash value of a randomly generated password:
9c5d89bdb8eac9c02d36479c243b9529

Feel free to tell everyone what the password is if it's so easy to crack, and how long it took.

Encryption, on the other hand, is reversible, you would decrypt it with whatever key was used to do the encryption. People often seem to say something like: if only the stolen data was encrypted with a key which conveniently wasn't also stolen, then there would be no problem.

I think Firefox can set a master password used to encrypt the passwords it saves.
Logged

loonylion

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2015, 12:56:46 PM »

Huh? Hashing is not reversible. The password is the input to a hash function, which outputs a number. There's not really any other way to crack them besides brute force.

Here's the MD5 hash value of a randomly generated password:
9c5d89bdb8eac9c02d36479c243b9529

Feel free to tell everyone what the password is if it's so easy to crack, and how long it took.

Not too long since md5 is weak, try it with sha2-512.
Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2015, 01:28:17 PM »

Huh? Hashing is not reversible. The password is the input to a hash function, which outputs a number. There's not really any other way to crack them besides brute force.

Here's the MD5 hash value of a randomly generated password:
9c5d89bdb8eac9c02d36479c243b9529

Feel free to tell everyone what the password is if it's so easy to crack, and how long it took.

Encryption, on the other hand, is reversible, you would decrypt it with whatever key was used to do the encryption. People often seem to say something like: if only the stolen data was encrypted with a key which conveniently wasn't also stolen, then there would be no problem.

I think Firefox can set a master password used to encrypt the passwords it saves.

Point taken regarding the distinction of hashing vs encryption, you are right.   I bow to your better explanation.   :)

It does not surprise me that Firefox allows a master password, which would encrypt stored passwords.  But that rather defeats the perceived convenience of 'saving' passwords, does it not?   Similarly, disk encryption may also some  protection, but comes with its own inconveniences.  My personal preference is to simply not allow browsers to store passwords.

For mail clients, a good compromise IMHO is google's machine-generated 'application-specific' passwords.   These passwords can be individually managed and  cancelled if a device is ever stolen or compromised.  Moreover when logged in using such a password, whilst you can  access mail, other account activities are out of bounds.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7389
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: BBC/GCHQ password advice
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2015, 09:40:59 PM »

with saving passwords one needs some common sense.

e.g. I dont save my paypal password in the browser.  But i might save my password on a forum.  However that option should always be down to the user.  Which is why google and mozilla did what they did, web developers started abusing the function.

Forcing people to manually enter passwords encourages weak passwords.

Now brute force attacks do exist, I think tony has also mentioned it with his MDWS site before (if I remember right).  I know they exist as I see it in server log's daily, its most common on email services.  Although if we talking about success rates, then I expect the main source of compromised accounts is with non brute force methods such as a keylogger.

But in regards to the ashley dating site the passwords were obtained via brute force, they were able to do it due to the lack of a strong hashing algorithm.
Logged
 

anything