4 ms·
> Instead they used js to do some sort of hashing type system locally. Just the other day a co-worker brought up this idea as an offhand remark. After bouncing
by chmod775 5y ago
> Instead they used js to do some sort of hashing type system locally.
Just the other day a co-worker brought up this idea as an offhand remark. After bouncing it off those present, it took him all of twenty seconds to see why it might do harm and will do little good.
You'd think a password manager would employ some security minded people who could shoot down ideas that bad immediately.
- mustyoshi 5y agoWhat were the counterpoints?
- chmod775 5y agoA weakness in your clientside hashing will make your site weaker to brute-force attacks, since it will reduce the number of hashes (or passwords) an attacker has to try (collisions in client-side hashes will too, but very negligibly for a good hash function). It's also impossible to recover from without relying on another form of authentication to re-establish trust. For many sites this means downgrading to single-factor. Any hash upgrade mechanism can be abused by a (possibly MITM) attacker to change a user's password while leaving you and the user none the wiser that specifically this occurred. If you need to lock someone out while their phone is beeping at them over their bank account being emptied, while not even making it look like their password was changed, that sounds like a fun way. Lastly it's virtually the same as plaintext, since any salt will be known by even just a passive attacker. A true MITM won't even have to brute-force the hash. Conclusion: Might do harm, will do little good.