5 ms·

Am I the only one who doesn’t want a future without passwords? There are problems with them, of course, but all the alternatives also have serious usability/sec

by qzw 5y ago

Am I the only one who doesn’t want a future without passwords? There are problems with them, of course, but all the alternatives also have serious usability/security issues. And just when we’re starting to get wider 2FA adoption, companies want to get rid of one of the factors. So we’re back to one factor that’s ultimately secured by a device password/passcode anyway. Plus if/when you’re not able to access the device, it’s much more painful to deal with. Not sure we’re really making that much progress.

ProAm 5y ago
No only that anytime you use Google's 2fa, you let them know where you are and what you are doing. Privacy is a commodity we have willingly and unwillingly given up.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  What is "Google's 2FA" ?
  - ProAm 5y ago
    It's the Google Sign In prompts when they moved away from SMS for 2FA [1] [2] [1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7026266 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7026266 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/17/google-confirms-powerful-new-security-move-impacting-all-users-goodbye-sms/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/17/google-co...
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      Ah, got it thanks.
  - PeterWhittaker 5y ago
    They have a range of second factor options, including simple SMS to your phone, the use of their authenticator app (which presumably uses TOTP ([1]), and which could therefore be replaced with compatible alternatives, e.g., LastPass's authenticator app), or USB keys containing a second factor (possibly TOTP-based). [2] has an overview of Google's TOTP implementation. They all do the same basic thing: userid and password let them know who you claim to be, which they validate using one of the second factors listed above. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6238.txt https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6238.txt [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Authenticator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Authenticator
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      Yeah I could think of multiple answers to my questions, which is why I asked.
- h4waii 5y ago
  Wha? Can you provide some more information on how using Google's security prompt provides "where you are and what you are doing"?
staticassertion 5y ago
> companies want to get rid of one of the factors This is because the security of "2FA" isn't really from the fact that there are two factors, but that one of the factors is kinda just ok, and the other factor is ideal. A password on top of a proper 2FA method doesn't actually add any security to the typical login flow. > So we’re back to one factor that’s ultimately secured by a device password/passcode anyway. Unsure of exactly what you mean here - in what way is something like a yubikey secured via a password? Also, even if that were the case, changing the scope of passwords is important in and of itself. > Plus if/when you’re not able to access the device, it’s much more painful to deal with. Agreed, this is the big problem to solve - essentially this is just a subset of the "recovery" problem. It's one place where passwords may still fit in, though in a different role. Ultimately, verifying identity at scale is just extremely difficult, and there will never be a perfect solution to recovery, but I think that we can mitigate that quite well with things like: a) Phones as 2FA devices/ recovery devices b) Multiple devices (ie: if we can reduce the cost of hardware tokens by an order of magnitude it becomes viable to buy 2+ for many more people) c) Slower recovery methods that involve leveraging multiple identity methods - things like validating a government issued ID, mailing address, etc.
- jscholes 5y ago
  > in what way is something like a yubikey secured via a password? It isn't, which makes me confused about how it is supposed to be more secure. If I lose my keys with a physical security key attached, not only do I now have to worry about somebody breaking into my house, but all of my online/digital properties as well (assuming passwords become a thing of the past). If they have my phone which has Touch/Face ID enabled, that poses a much more significant challenge to an attacker (and can maybe be mitigated if I can remote wipe the device in time).
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    Well, there is a pin on a yubikey[0], but I just meant I don't think it's totally necessary, and I'm not sure exactly when it's required. > but all of my online/digital properties as well (assuming passwords become a thing of the past) For sure, and that's definitely not a threat to take lightly - another thing to consider would be when the attacker is someone who inherently has physical access to you (say an abusive partner, parent, etc). You're totally right that a password can, at least to some extent, help in these situations. Like I said, I still see a use case for the password, it's just that the scope would change - like how password managers only require you to remember one single password, and that password is essentially only used in one place. This really reduces the risk of phishing. > If they have my phone which has Touch/Face ID enabled, that poses a much more significant challenge to an attacker (and can maybe be mitigated if I can remote wipe the device in time). Yeah, agreed - I think biometrics can definitely be a key part of how we get to a password-less world. There's other stuff too, like if the attacker has your key, but they're logging in from a new device, maybe it asks for some other verification like a biometric, or even a password / pin - but now the password again is taking a very different, much more limited role. All I'm really saying is that the current way things work is pretty bad. Passwords get forgotten, guessed, stolen, reused, phished, etc. Using a device solves those problems really well, and while it does have its caveats, I think the caveats are largely addressable. [0] https://developers.yubico.com/yubikey-piv-manager/PIN_and_Management_Key.html https://developers.yubico.com/yubikey-piv-manager/PIN_and_Ma...
drdeadringer 5y ago
> Am I the only one who doesn’t want a future without passwords? As much of a Science Fiction fan I am with "iris logins" and similar, I am also a retro-futurist who appreciates things like punch-number security for secured doors. I mislike this current 2FA path of security for several reasons, the least of which is what if the email never comes or I don't have a cell phone (let alone a smartphone)? I'm screwed. Passwords, passcodes, number pads ... seems to be quite more Human than all of this "prove yourself in the name of security theatre" these days.
- XorNot 5y ago
  I've gone completely off biometric security. It's unchangeable and externally facing. The only truly secure enclave is the things in my head, and they have the benefit of being changeable if compromised, and I can make a positive distinction of value if under duress.
  - bostik 5y ago
    As you should. They are amputationware. [Snark warning!] "We were compromised. Rotate your passwords, chop off your finger and change your face." [End snark] Biometric measurements are fuzzy, by their nature. This in turn means that for every stored biometric identifier, there is a whole range of inputs / input signals that will match. On top of that, the measurement devices are on untrusted systems. If you can compromise the device and extract the signal sent from the sensor, you should have a near universal replay payload. Right now that is still an espionage realm threat, but as these methods become more universal, mass attacks against large populations become more and more appealing. Archives of valid (username, password) tuples are already sold on underground markets. It's not much of a stretch to predict that (username, biometric sensor dump) archives will eventually become a commodity too.
    - someguyorother 5y ago
      >If you can compromise the device and extract the signal sent from the sensor, you should have a near universal replay payload. Right now that is still an espionage realm threat, but as these methods become more universal, mass attacks against large populations become more and more appealing. If the manufacturers had a sense of security, they would make the sensor into a hard-wired device that takes an auxiliary value as input and combines the input with a fuzzy extractor to provide a unique key per auxiliary value in such a way that neither the value nor the biometric can be extracted from the key. But I'm not holding my breath!
jabroni_salad 5y ago
If one of the factors is extremely secure (pushes, smartcard FIDO2, yubikey) then I think it is reasonable for the other factor to just be a PIN instead of a password.
simondotau 5y ago
Personally I think the basic building blocks of the password manager workflow is pretty damn close to perfect. Maybe the contemporary password manager could be refined further, but I do like the building blocks: 1. There is an encrypted blob which contains distinct authentication tokens/passwords/whatever for every website/service I have an account at. This blob can be moved around, synced and updated however I like, with zero concern about who has a copy of it. 2. I decrypt this blob locally on device, using a combination of multiple factors such as what I know (a passphrase) and what I have (e.g. a copy of a static but un-guessable and un-rememberable account key, which is copied to all my devices, potentially stored at rest inside a secure enclave). 3. The decrypted blob then authenticates me on services using data which is entirely random and arbitrary. I could only imagine how much more perfect this arrangement could be with total industry uniformity. Imagine if a common, uniform password manager API was integrated into computers from the earliest days, and all browsers integrating this system service from the very beginning of the Web. Every website could have been built be built around this workflow, not to mention every binary application on desktops and smartphones.
- ec109685 5y ago
  In your system, doesn’t security still just come down to the passcode of your phone and physical access to it? With access to your phone, the attacker will have access to your email, which will likely allow them to reset the password on any account.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    This is true for any phone where you are persistently signed into your email client. The solution is a competent hardware security layer and a reasonably strong passcode, such as offered on recent models of iPhone. This is sufficient for normal people to thwart opportunistic attacks. Of course if your adversary is a Government or a corporation that has root permission on your device, you would obviously take a different security posture.
jjav 5y ago
Yes. Authentication via shared secret (aka password) is actually ideal from most use case angles. Sure it's broken if that password is "password123". And remembering 20+ characters (minimum to be good) isn't practical. But all that is solved problem with password managers. Generate very long truly random & unique passwords which are never reused and that is actually very strong.

by qzw 5y ago

ProAm 5y ago

No only that anytime you use Google's 2fa, you let them know where you are and what you are doing. Privacy is a commodity we have willingly and unwillingly given up.

staticassertion 5y ago
What is "Google's 2FA" ?
- ProAm 5y ago
  It's the Google Sign In prompts when they moved away from SMS for 2FA [1] [2] [1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7026266 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7026266 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/17/google-confirms-powerful-new-security-move-impacting-all-users-goodbye-sms/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/17/google-co...
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    Ah, got it thanks.
- PeterWhittaker 5y ago
  They have a range of second factor options, including simple SMS to your phone, the use of their authenticator app (which presumably uses TOTP ([1]), and which could therefore be replaced with compatible alternatives, e.g., LastPass's authenticator app), or USB keys containing a second factor (possibly TOTP-based). [2] has an overview of Google's TOTP implementation. They all do the same basic thing: userid and password let them know who you claim to be, which they validate using one of the second factors listed above. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6238.txt https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6238.txt [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Authenticator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Authenticator
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    Yeah I could think of multiple answers to my questions, which is why I asked.
h4waii 5y ago
Wha? Can you provide some more information on how using Google's security prompt provides "where you are and what you are doing"?

staticassertion 5y ago

> companies want to get rid of one of the factors This is because the security of "2FA" isn't really from the fact that there are two factors, but that one of the factors is kinda just ok, and the other factor is ideal. A password on top of a proper 2FA method doesn't actually add any security to the typical login flow. > So we’re back to one factor that’s ultimately secured by a device password/passcode anyway. Unsure of exactly what you mean here - in what way is something like a yubikey secured via a password? Also, even if that were the case, changing the scope of passwords is important in and of itself. > Plus if/when you’re not able to access the device, it’s much more painful to deal with. Agreed, this is the big problem to solve - essentially this is just a subset of the "recovery" problem. It's one place where passwords may still fit in, though in a different role. Ultimately, verifying identity at scale is just extremely difficult, and there will never be a perfect solution to recovery, but I think that we can mitigate that quite well with things like: a) Phones as 2FA devices/ recovery devices b) Multiple devices (ie: if we can reduce the cost of hardware tokens by an order of magnitude it becomes viable to buy 2+ for many more people) c) Slower recovery methods that involve leveraging multiple identity methods - things like validating a government issued ID, mailing address, etc.

jscholes 5y ago
> in what way is something like a yubikey secured via a password? It isn't, which makes me confused about how it is supposed to be more secure. If I lose my keys with a physical security key attached, not only do I now have to worry about somebody breaking into my house, but all of my online/digital properties as well (assuming passwords become a thing of the past). If they have my phone which has Touch/Face ID enabled, that poses a much more significant challenge to an attacker (and can maybe be mitigated if I can remote wipe the device in time).
- staticassertion 5y ago
  Well, there is a pin on a yubikey[0], but I just meant I don't think it's totally necessary, and I'm not sure exactly when it's required. > but all of my online/digital properties as well (assuming passwords become a thing of the past) For sure, and that's definitely not a threat to take lightly - another thing to consider would be when the attacker is someone who inherently has physical access to you (say an abusive partner, parent, etc). You're totally right that a password can, at least to some extent, help in these situations. Like I said, I still see a use case for the password, it's just that the scope would change - like how password managers only require you to remember one single password, and that password is essentially only used in one place. This really reduces the risk of phishing. > If they have my phone which has Touch/Face ID enabled, that poses a much more significant challenge to an attacker (and can maybe be mitigated if I can remote wipe the device in time). Yeah, agreed - I think biometrics can definitely be a key part of how we get to a password-less world. There's other stuff too, like if the attacker has your key, but they're logging in from a new device, maybe it asks for some other verification like a biometric, or even a password / pin - but now the password again is taking a very different, much more limited role. All I'm really saying is that the current way things work is pretty bad. Passwords get forgotten, guessed, stolen, reused, phished, etc. Using a device solves those problems really well, and while it does have its caveats, I think the caveats are largely addressable. [0] https://developers.yubico.com/yubikey-piv-manager/PIN_and_Management_Key.html https://developers.yubico.com/yubikey-piv-manager/PIN_and_Ma...

drdeadringer 5y ago

> Am I the only one who doesn’t want a future without passwords? As much of a Science Fiction fan I am with "iris logins" and similar, I am also a retro-futurist who appreciates things like punch-number security for secured doors. I mislike this current 2FA path of security for several reasons, the least of which is what if the email never comes or I don't have a cell phone (let alone a smartphone)? I'm screwed. Passwords, passcodes, number pads ... seems to be quite more Human than all of this "prove yourself in the name of security theatre" these days.

XorNot 5y ago
I've gone completely off biometric security. It's unchangeable and externally facing. The only truly secure enclave is the things in my head, and they have the benefit of being changeable if compromised, and I can make a positive distinction of value if under duress.
- bostik 5y ago
  As you should. They are amputationware. [Snark warning!] "We were compromised. Rotate your passwords, chop off your finger and change your face." [End snark] Biometric measurements are fuzzy, by their nature. This in turn means that for every stored biometric identifier, there is a whole range of inputs / input signals that will match. On top of that, the measurement devices are on untrusted systems. If you can compromise the device and extract the signal sent from the sensor, you should have a near universal replay payload. Right now that is still an espionage realm threat, but as these methods become more universal, mass attacks against large populations become more and more appealing. Archives of valid (username, password) tuples are already sold on underground markets. It's not much of a stretch to predict that (username, biometric sensor dump) archives will eventually become a commodity too.
  - someguyorother 5y ago
    >If you can compromise the device and extract the signal sent from the sensor, you should have a near universal replay payload. Right now that is still an espionage realm threat, but as these methods become more universal, mass attacks against large populations become more and more appealing. If the manufacturers had a sense of security, they would make the sensor into a hard-wired device that takes an auxiliary value as input and combines the input with a fuzzy extractor to provide a unique key per auxiliary value in such a way that neither the value nor the biometric can be extracted from the key. But I'm not holding my breath!

jabroni_salad 5y ago

If one of the factors is extremely secure (pushes, smartcard FIDO2, yubikey) then I think it is reasonable for the other factor to just be a PIN instead of a password.

simondotau 5y ago

Personally I think the basic building blocks of the password manager workflow is pretty damn close to perfect. Maybe the contemporary password manager could be refined further, but I do like the building blocks: 1. There is an encrypted blob which contains distinct authentication tokens/passwords/whatever for every website/service I have an account at. This blob can be moved around, synced and updated however I like, with zero concern about who has a copy of it. 2. I decrypt this blob locally on device, using a combination of multiple factors such as what I know (a passphrase) and what I have (e.g. a copy of a static but un-guessable and un-rememberable account key, which is copied to all my devices, potentially stored at rest inside a secure enclave). 3. The decrypted blob then authenticates me on services using data which is entirely random and arbitrary. I could only imagine how much more perfect this arrangement could be with total industry uniformity. Imagine if a common, uniform password manager API was integrated into computers from the earliest days, and all browsers integrating this system service from the very beginning of the Web. Every website could have been built be built around this workflow, not to mention every binary application on desktops and smartphones.

ec109685 5y ago
In your system, doesn’t security still just come down to the passcode of your phone and physical access to it? With access to your phone, the attacker will have access to your email, which will likely allow them to reset the password on any account.
- simondotau 5y ago
  This is true for any phone where you are persistently signed into your email client. The solution is a competent hardware security layer and a reasonably strong passcode, such as offered on recent models of iPhone. This is sufficient for normal people to thwart opportunistic attacks. Of course if your adversary is a Government or a corporation that has root permission on your device, you would obviously take a different security posture.

jjav 5y ago

Yes. Authentication via shared secret (aka password) is actually ideal from most use case angles. Sure it's broken if that password is "password123". And remembering 20+ characters (minimum to be good) isn't practical. But all that is solved problem with password managers. Generate very long truly random & unique passwords which are never reused and that is actually very strong.