4 ms·

Everything you described is still a shared secret. Hashing your password client side is just a way to create a random, shared password. Yes, an attacker has a m

Everything you described is still a shared secret. Hashing your password client side is just a way to create a random, shared password. Yes, an attacker has a much harder time getting to your password, but they don't need to if it's the hash that's the one the server knows and checks against. Asymmetric cryptography with its Math Magic IS the solution industry came up with.

KronisLV 5y ago
But if the valid hash changes as a function of time (e.g. a time based salt value), does it still matter as much, then? If a stale hash is stolen, then it doesn't allow to log in since it's no longer valid, nor does it allow figuring out the original password. I find it interesting to reason about all of the interesting ways this could still break, as long as the words of Eoin Woods [1] are followed: "Never invent security tech.", to only reason about these things outside of production environments, and use tested solutions there. In that regard, asymemetric cryptography and the frameworks surrounding it seem to be the one way to go. Of course, that brings up a further question: why aren't certificates the default way to sign up for sites for end users? Instead of coming up with a password, or using API keys or whatever, why not create a certificate through some sort of a browser/external mechanism instead? It feels like no attempts have been made to make something like that easier, so that it'd replace the concept of passwords. Thanks for your input, but i guess i shouldn't take up too much of your time. [1] https://speakerdeck.com/eoinwoods/secure-by-design-security-design-principles-for-the-working-architect?slide=31 (or in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qN3JBGd1g8 )
- tialaramex 5y ago
  > why aren't certificates the default way to sign up for sites for end users? Some reasons: Initially this doesn't make any sense. Tim's toy hypermedia system (the Web) does not have any of the properties you expect today, it doesn't achieve Confidentiality, nor Integrity, nor Authentication. So it's like you live in a village where they don't have doors yet and you're wondering why there's no locksmith. Once it did exist the UX for client TLS certificates in browsers is very bad. But of course we could in principle improve that UX. However an underlying reason is that this approach has lousy privacy properties. Certificates tie an identity to the key, and the Certificate Authority - whoever that would be in this setup - needs to be able to verify those identities or else you aren't Certifying anything. So now maybe you're giving Facebook an X.509 certificate with your full legal name, place of birth, and so on. Most people are not comfortable with that. Even those people who are cool with giving Facebook their real personal details may not be keen to share them also with Google, Twitter, Porn Hub and their favourite web comic. This is why FIDO tokens used for WebAuthn give a completely fresh random ID and key for each enrollment. Who am I? I'm definitely the exact same person I was when I enrolled here, and more than that I shouldn't need to prove. You can't tie these identifiers and keys to other accounts on other services or even to other accounts on the same service.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    > ...it's like you live in a village where they don't have doors yet and you're wondering why there's no locksmith. And yet, technologies like HTTPS have now become mainstream, in part due to pressure from big corporations (like Google search rankings), in part due to technologies to make safe defaults easier (Certbot, web servers like Traefik and Caddy). Surely with time authentication and authorization methods will get a similar treatment? It's unfortunate that following X.509 best practices would involve sharing personal information, instead of putting a UUID in some field that only has a meaning server side, since most private information is already stored on sites in some capacity, for example, to enable payments. It's good to know that people have made progress with WebAuthn, though, even if roaming authenticators will probably slow down the adoption a bit.

KronisLV 5y ago

But if the valid hash changes as a function of time (e.g. a time based salt value), does it still matter as much, then? If a stale hash is stolen, then it doesn't allow to log in since it's no longer valid, nor does it allow figuring out the original password. I find it interesting to reason about all of the interesting ways this could still break, as long as the words of Eoin Woods [1] are followed: "Never invent security tech.", to only reason about these things outside of production environments, and use tested solutions there. In that regard, asymemetric cryptography and the frameworks surrounding it seem to be the one way to go. Of course, that brings up a further question: why aren't certificates the default way to sign up for sites for end users? Instead of coming up with a password, or using API keys or whatever, why not create a certificate through some sort of a browser/external mechanism instead? It feels like no attempts have been made to make something like that easier, so that it'd replace the concept of passwords. Thanks for your input, but i guess i shouldn't take up too much of your time. [1] https://speakerdeck.com/eoinwoods/secure-by-design-security-design-principles-for-the-working-architect?slide=31 (or in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qN3JBGd1g8 )

tialaramex 5y ago
> why aren't certificates the default way to sign up for sites for end users? Some reasons: Initially this doesn't make any sense. Tim's toy hypermedia system (the Web) does not have any of the properties you expect today, it doesn't achieve Confidentiality, nor Integrity, nor Authentication. So it's like you live in a village where they don't have doors yet and you're wondering why there's no locksmith. Once it did exist the UX for client TLS certificates in browsers is very bad. But of course we could in principle improve that UX. However an underlying reason is that this approach has lousy privacy properties. Certificates tie an identity to the key, and the Certificate Authority - whoever that would be in this setup - needs to be able to verify those identities or else you aren't Certifying anything. So now maybe you're giving Facebook an X.509 certificate with your full legal name, place of birth, and so on. Most people are not comfortable with that. Even those people who are cool with giving Facebook their real personal details may not be keen to share them also with Google, Twitter, Porn Hub and their favourite web comic. This is why FIDO tokens used for WebAuthn give a completely fresh random ID and key for each enrollment. Who am I? I'm definitely the exact same person I was when I enrolled here, and more than that I shouldn't need to prove. You can't tie these identifiers and keys to other accounts on other services or even to other accounts on the same service.
- KronisLV 5y ago
  > ...it's like you live in a village where they don't have doors yet and you're wondering why there's no locksmith. And yet, technologies like HTTPS have now become mainstream, in part due to pressure from big corporations (like Google search rankings), in part due to technologies to make safe defaults easier (Certbot, web servers like Traefik and Caddy). Surely with time authentication and authorization methods will get a similar treatment? It's unfortunate that following X.509 best practices would involve sharing personal information, instead of putting a UUID in some field that only has a meaning server side, since most private information is already stored on sites in some capacity, for example, to enable payments. It's good to know that people have made progress with WebAuthn, though, even if roaming authenticators will probably slow down the adoption a bit.