5 ms·
Because chances are, if you are using a password that is in the list, it's because either it's an exceedingly common password (and you really shouldn't be using
by snowwolf 8y ago
Because chances are, if you are using a password that is in the list, it's because either it's an exceedingly common password (and you really shouldn't be using it) or you've used it before multiple times and are probably the reason it is in the list (because it was breached on another site).
From experience, most attacks we see now are credential stuffing attacks rather than pure brute force attacks using something like Sentry MBA, with a huge number of IP addresses (the last attack we saw was using over 6 million IP addresses). So throttling sign in attempts at the IP level is almost useless as is throttling at the email level, as the attacker can attempt at least 6 million known email/password combinations to see if those accounts exist on your site.
The only real defence against that is all your users using 2 factor, or creating a psuedo 2nd factor (email them if the attempt is from an unrecognised IP).
Edit: Of course the other helpful defence is to ensure your users aren't reusing passwords, which is where Pwned Passwords comes in.
- jsmeaton 8y agoI can attest to this. Credential stuffing was the number 1 reason we decided to add the pwnedpassword validation to our signup flows. We were seeing thousands of IP addresses and hundreds of thousands of requests over a few days. Rate limiting slows it down but doesn’t help all that much. Rate limiting on a specific username will prevent brute forcing but exposes you to DOS. Rate limiting by IP becomes less effective when thousands are involved and most requests end up succeeding. Disclaimer: work for Kogan who is mentioned in TFA.
- snowwrestler 8y ago> Rate limiting by IP becomes less effective when thousands are involved and most requests end up succeeding. What do you mean by "end up succeeding"? Most requests successfully authenticated? On the first try? Second try? Tenth try? Hundredth try? (I'm not trying to doubt the utility of pwnedpassword validation; just hoping you can help me understand the threat you're facing and why IP rate limiting didn't help much. Thanks.)
- URSpider94 8y agoI think what he’s saying is that if the attacker has enough IP addresses at their disposal, they can spread out the attack broadly enough that any IP-based rate limit that would stop a bot would also impact human users. Thus most of the bot attempts slip in under the rate limit.
- snowwolf 8y agoPerhaps an example will help. Lets say you have IP throttling/rate limiting. And you have it set to an extremely conservative limit - 1 sign in attempt every hour. This is great for the brute force threat - 24 passwords a day can be attempted by 1 IP. Infeasible for any brute forcing. But now lets say the attacker has access to a botnet with 6 million unique IP addresses (not theoretical - see my comment above). Now for each of those 6 million IPs they can try 24 passwords a day - i.e. 144 million attempts a day without ever triggering the throttle. Bear in mind also that they aren't just trying random passwords for an account - they have a compiled/combined breach list of known account/password combinations from other breaches. So they can attempt 144 million known combinations a day. Without hitting any throttles (this is what the parent above means by "end up succeding"). What percentage of your users reuse passwords and have been exposed to at least one breach? I would suggest it's quite a high value. How long do you think it will take a credential stuffing attack to identify those accounts on your site when they can try 100's of millions of combinations a day? This is the threat vector.
- jsmeaton 8y agoThank you, this covered what I was trying to say.
- jessaustin 8y agoISTM the next step would be to rate limit for a given account without regard to IP. Sure that's a potential DOS, but we can wait until that's actually a problem before worrying about it.
- snowwolf 8y ago
- C7H8N4O2 8y ago> Rate limiting on a specific username will prevent brute forcing but exposes you to DOS. Why?
- Sohcahtoa82 8y agoYou can lock a user out of their account by spamming the server with login attempts.
- jsmeaton 8y agoYes. In this case the denial of service is against specific customer accounts for the lockout duration, not against the availability of the site.
- jessaustin 8y agoThis would be bad, but what's the motivation? What fabulous prizes await the DOSer of some random account on your service?
- jsmeaton 8y agoLocking users out of their accounts isn’t the goal, it’s just an unfortunate side effect.
- bluesroo 8y agoNot the OP, but I think he's referring to the potential for an automated service spamming thousands (or more) accounts enough to lock them.