4 ms·
I'm no security expert but it was always my understanding is that once an attacker has physical access to a computer it can no longer be considered secure, no m
by DrJokepu 15y ago
I'm no security expert but it was always my understanding is that once an attacker has physical access to a computer it can no longer be considered secure, no matter what. Also, my understanding is that this is a widely accepted fact in the security community. How can a website called "Security Week" ignore this very relevant piece of knowledge then?
- privacyguru 15y agoWith proper precautions, systems can be secured properly and with quite good security. Anytime a computer doesn't have encrypted data it's insecure, assuming an attacked has physical access. Installing a new operating system while keeping old data is cake. If a laptop is stolen or attempted to access data that is encrypted with proper security measures, it's pretty tough to break. Nothing is ever 100% secure but with proper security measures and encryption (either full disk or of sensitive data) it's pretty tough.
- Locke1689 15y agoNah, if the computer is left on I could use a cold boot attack to dump the memory and find the encryption key in there somewhere. If you really want to secure devices against physical intrusion you'll need to do a bunch of TPM, anti-intrusion, and smartcard work.
- kevin_morrill 15y agoIf this is reported correctly, it sounds like passwords are stored in memory for quite a while in their unhashed, clear text form. This is not good for people that depend on FileVault as a way to assume that physical access doesn't necessarily compromise their data. It's a little hard to believe this as there's really no need to have the password kept in memory; it could be the exploit requires the device to be plugged in while you're typing your password--which is more believable and also less interesting.
- sp332 15y agoIf you have the autologin feature enabled, which would you prefer: keep the password in RAM, where most people can't get it, or put it on the hard drive, which is a much easier target?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ovi256 15y agoBut why would the autologin implementation need access to the cleartext password ? And then why is the cleartext password stored at all ? These seems like big holes.
- epochwolf 15y agoOn OSX, probably to unlock keychain.
- Sidnicious 15y agoYep: http://www.brock-family.org/gavin/perl/kcpassword.html http://www.brock-family.org/gavin/perl/kcpassword.html
- DmitrySumin 15y agoMac OS X 10.6 and 10.7 do store clear-text passwords in memory, long after login.
- eropple 15y agoIt uses them, too. For convenience's sake (because everything else is locked under other passwords) I use the same usernames/passwords for my local machines, and without prompting me my new Mini was able to access SMB shares on other machines. I'm not terribly worried about it because this password is unique to local logins on my own network, but it was a little unnerving.
- 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- smackfu 15y agoThat's one of those useless truisms, since preventing casual access to a physical attacker is definitely still important. Do you really think there are security experts who don't bother with screensaver passwords or whole disk encryption?
- sciurus 15y agoI think what most people imagine regarding physical access threats is someone booting up a live cd and copying/altering your files, or maybe attaching a hardware keylogger. I think fewer people realize that just by plugging in a firewire device to a running system someone can read and write arbitrary memory values.