4 ms·

This bothers me: > The database also contained passwords, which were stored as an MD5 hash, a long-outdated algorithm that is nowadays easy to crack. Many of t

by dgzl 8y ago

This bothers me: > The database also contained passwords, which were stored as an MD5 hash, a long-outdated algorithm that is nowadays easy to crack. Many of the passwords were easily unscrambled using readily available tools when we tried. That's not how hash functions work... > Kim denied this. “We don’t use MD5 for our passwords to store them,” he said. “The MD5 keys were a log and it does not represent how we are managing data. We use more advanced methods like salted hash and SHA2 on securing users’ data in our database.” This sounds much more likely. > (Logging in with an email address and unscrambled password would be unlawful, therefore we cannot verify this claim.) So, they directly claim that weakly hashed passwords were available (and unscramble-able, apparently??), but they're unable to prove this and they're ignoring the company's reasonable explanation. Great reporting.

CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
SHA2 isn’t any more reasonable. You _can_ use sha with a proper key derivation function. But just saying that sha2 somehow improves on md5 without additional context indicates to me that you haven’t understood the problem.
free652 8y ago
The passwords were md5 hashed and most likely broken using dictionary attack or brute forced with tools like hashcat. I forgot my password once, but I knew the general letters and it brute forced in a minute.
- dgzl 8y ago
  Yeah weak hashes are easy to replicate, I was just laughing at the words they used.... Unscramble, like it's an encryption method or something.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    It sounded more like you were trying to discredit the report. The terms are well accepted laymen terms to use when talking about cracking passwords.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    I'm perfectly comfortable with saying "unscramble" when talking about using a rainbow table to figure out the corresponding password for a MD5 hash. If I'm writing docs for MD5, that's one thing. General tech reporting? "Unscramble" is understandable to someone who's never had to implement a password hash, which is most of the populace.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
austincheney 8y ago
> That's not how hash functions work... Kind of. A hash function just provides a near random set of characters of fixed length for a given set of input in a way where the output characters are reproducible for the given input. Passwords are not stored. It is the computed hash value that is stored. When a user attempts to login with a username and password the password is hashed and compared to the stored hash. That said you don't need the actual password to login. Any input that hashes to the same hash string is acceptable, which is called a hash collision. When they say cracking the hash this is likely what they mean, and its trivial to compute provided a rainbow table. Salting provides an additional round of computation. For example let's say a user is trying to login. Their password is hashed but before the hashed are compared some additional information is added on the end of the computed hash and that new value is hashed. It is this new hash that is compared with the stored hash, which requires knowledge of the hash algorithm, the salt, and the hash value. You can generally guess the final hash algorithm in question by observing the character length of the stored hashes, but since there are two hash computations a different hash algorithm could be used for the first round of hashing. To be secure the salt must be stored in a different location from the stored hashes and the salt value should not be statically visible in the source code provided a source code compromise. Statically expressed passwords are uploaded to code repositories all the time. Don't believe that you are protected from associated vulnerabilities merely because the code base isn't open source. To the article's defense neither claim was verified, but both claims were reported. When the journalist cannot validate a claim themselves, or with experts, it is completely acceptable to report the claim and report the validation status.
- dgzl 8y ago
  > To the article's defense neither claim was verified, but both claims were reported. When the journalist cannot validate a claim themselves, or with experts, it is completely acceptable to report the claim and report the validation status. The reporter says they successfully produced passwords, sounds clean-cut and dry to me. Don't you think this is a pretty important claim to verify, instead of asserting without giving proof? Granted, if a dictionary attack gives you a bunch of 'password' variants, you probably don't need much more evidence. If the reporter is so invested in producing this story, then being able to say "no, these are definitely passwords" in the face of the executive would be the golden ticket, right?
Someone 8y ago
“We don’t use MD5 for our passwords to store them,” he said. “The MD5 keys were a log and it does not represent how we are managing data. We use more advanced methods like salted hash and SHA2 on securing users’ data in our database.” So, they store your data securely, but that doesn’t matter, since they also stored it insecurely, and leaked the latter.
zaroth 8y ago
Ummm, that is exactly how password cracking works. The fact the reporter actually went the extra step to crack some of the hashes is impressive reporting actually.

by dgzl 8y ago

CuriousSkeptic 8y ago

SHA2 isn’t any more reasonable. You _can_ use sha with a proper key derivation function. But just saying that sha2 somehow improves on md5 without additional context indicates to me that you haven’t understood the problem.

free652 8y ago

The passwords were md5 hashed and most likely broken using dictionary attack or brute forced with tools like hashcat. I forgot my password once, but I knew the general letters and it brute forced in a minute.

dgzl 8y ago
Yeah weak hashes are easy to replicate, I was just laughing at the words they used.... Unscramble, like it's an encryption method or something.
- zaroth 8y ago
  It sounded more like you were trying to discredit the report. The terms are well accepted laymen terms to use when talking about cracking passwords.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  I'm perfectly comfortable with saying "unscramble" when talking about using a rainbow table to figure out the corresponding password for a MD5 hash. If I'm writing docs for MD5, that's one thing. General tech reporting? "Unscramble" is understandable to someone who's never had to implement a password hash, which is most of the populace.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

austincheney 8y ago

> That's not how hash functions work... Kind of. A hash function just provides a near random set of characters of fixed length for a given set of input in a way where the output characters are reproducible for the given input. Passwords are not stored. It is the computed hash value that is stored. When a user attempts to login with a username and password the password is hashed and compared to the stored hash. That said you don't need the actual password to login. Any input that hashes to the same hash string is acceptable, which is called a hash collision. When they say cracking the hash this is likely what they mean, and its trivial to compute provided a rainbow table. Salting provides an additional round of computation. For example let's say a user is trying to login. Their password is hashed but before the hashed are compared some additional information is added on the end of the computed hash and that new value is hashed. It is this new hash that is compared with the stored hash, which requires knowledge of the hash algorithm, the salt, and the hash value. You can generally guess the final hash algorithm in question by observing the character length of the stored hashes, but since there are two hash computations a different hash algorithm could be used for the first round of hashing. To be secure the salt must be stored in a different location from the stored hashes and the salt value should not be statically visible in the source code provided a source code compromise. Statically expressed passwords are uploaded to code repositories all the time. Don't believe that you are protected from associated vulnerabilities merely because the code base isn't open source. To the article's defense neither claim was verified, but both claims were reported. When the journalist cannot validate a claim themselves, or with experts, it is completely acceptable to report the claim and report the validation status.

dgzl 8y ago
> To the article's defense neither claim was verified, but both claims were reported. When the journalist cannot validate a claim themselves, or with experts, it is completely acceptable to report the claim and report the validation status. The reporter says they successfully produced passwords, sounds clean-cut and dry to me. Don't you think this is a pretty important claim to verify, instead of asserting without giving proof? Granted, if a dictionary attack gives you a bunch of 'password' variants, you probably don't need much more evidence. If the reporter is so invested in producing this story, then being able to say "no, these are definitely passwords" in the face of the executive would be the golden ticket, right?

Someone 8y ago

“We don’t use MD5 for our passwords to store them,” he said. “The MD5 keys were a log and it does not represent how we are managing data. We use more advanced methods like salted hash and SHA2 on securing users’ data in our database.” So, they store your data securely, but that doesn’t matter, since they also stored it insecurely, and leaked the latter.

zaroth 8y ago

Ummm, that is exactly how password cracking works. The fact the reporter actually went the extra step to crack some of the hashes is impressive reporting actually.