3 ms·
'Cause a whole bunch of people don't know how to do security. You'd be surprised how many people come up with this then don't think any further. This is the k
by alias_neo 7y ago
'Cause a whole bunch of people don't know how to do security.
You'd be surprised how many people come up with this then don't think any further.
This is the kind of solution I see from new grads with no crypto/security experience, but whom with a quick frown, think about it a little more and suggest why this is a bad idea. Many can do that even when they don't know how exactly to do it correctly.
This was just lazy/rushed or dare I say it, negligent.
- professorTuring 7y agoI guess they were proud for using encryption instead of hashing, hence, more secure! Definitely they didn't follow the one and only rule of security: don't roll your own.
- alias_neo 7y agoAgain it's a grad level thing, but many smart grads can work out why encrypting isn't better. At least of the many I've interviewed, even ones I didn't hire could figure this much out.
- tsimionescu 7y agoHashing is not an option for locally saved passwords. Some kind of token-based Auth scheme could work, but not hashed passwords. That said, the much greater problem is the idea of using a hard-coded key, instead of generating a unique key for each device/installation.
- d1str0 7y agoUnique keys don’t help much. It only takes one person to write a script and put on github so that it can dynamically find the key and unencrypted stored password.
- _wldu 7y agoThe policy person at head quarters said, "systems must encrypt sensitive data". The local security office classified passwords as 'sensitive data' and sent a memo to all staff (sensitive data must be encrypted at rest). The devs encrypted the passwords. The auditors 'checked the box' as the passwords were now encrypted. Everyone moved on and forgot about it. At the time, a few people complained about the details... something about one way hashes. But they complain about everything, so no one listened to them.