4 ms·

Embarrassments will continue until everyone realizes all the "security experts" recommending password managers have marketing deals with them. Password managers

Embarrassments will continue until everyone realizes all the "security experts" recommending password managers have marketing deals with them. Password managers are an awful antipattern, I've been saying it for years, and it's absolutely comical to me that people do not get the message. When one falls, it's "oh that one sucked, use this other one instead". An Internet-connected data vault is subject to attack from anyone on the planet. A Post-It stuck to your monitor is only subject to attack from people who can visually look inside your office. Guess which is safer? Once you realize a Post-It is a better choice, and you can think of trivial ways to improve on that... why are people storing their passwords online?

plaguepilled 4y ago
What about offline only managers?
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  Is it stored on a device which connects to the Internet? It's online! I think there's a role to play for things like KeePass when you need to share some secret values with family or team members, but it shouldn't be for high security things. Two-factor authentication is probably our best practical defense right now, and generally the best way to do that is not to have your password saved anywhere: Two-factor is "something you know and something you have". If your passwords are stored somewhere, it's just two things you have. If, like some Bitwarden users, you backup your 2FA tokens in your password manager, 2FA is just one thing you have. An using a password poor enough for you to remember and a two-factor token is better than just two separate apps on your phone.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Ehhhh, I dunno on that one. I think "stored on an end user device" is quite different from "stored on a server with a public address". Firewall rules differ, for one. ISPs are more restrictive on what they flag as suspicious for domestic connections for two. Yes it would be better if the password manager were airgapped but that's a bad trade off in terms of user inefficiency and risk reduction IMO. In the same way, the reduction of attack surface by using post-its seems dulled by the consequent decrease in password complexity caused by people deciding their own passwords (since people subconsciously apply patterns to "random" strings they generate). This isn't to say "post its are bad" or "password managers good" but I am pushing back at the categorical statement of "post its good, managers bad". It seems contingent on risk profile.
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      I will agree with you end user devices are generally safer. No points for ISPs being useful for anything, because they tend not to be, but firewalls for sure, and of course, the best accidental security protection ever developed: NAT. The other big difference is that end users have a single user's credentials, which is way less exciting than popping a large provider which can compromise millions of users at once. That being said regarding Vaultwarden, as someone who contributes to a self-hosting platform, I interact with a lot of self-hosters. And self-hosters do a lot of really dumb things that aren't secure, and, of course, tend to add a public DNS endpoint to their password manager. :P People put a lot of investment into the concept of making passwords super secure. For most passwords, that is silly and probably does more to increase risk. I would argue a password you can remember + 2FA is much safer than a password generated by a password manager, and any platform smart enough to support 2FA is also not going to give you unlimited password attempts. But the biggest issue I have with people's views on password complexity and password managers is the idea that all passwords should be equally secure. (Or even, that you "must use a unique password on every site".) I sign up for a lot of crud. Usually it's because something made me sign in to read or comment or something, or a one-off purchase where I'm not even storing my payment credentials. If we're talking about risk profile, these aren't passwords that need to be heavily secured. But if you treat them like they must be, you'll end up using a password manager, likely for all of your accounts, including making your more important accounts, like your email and bank, less secure. Understand the risk of an account getting compromised, and set it's password accordingly. Absolutely use bad worthless passwords on one-off sites that can't impact you much. Heck forget those passwords, and reset them if you ever need to come back to the site. Password resets are cheap for things you rarely go to. Turn 2FA on everywhere, and ensure your important passwords are high quality and unique. If you have a bad memory, create some sort of portable reminder, or if you have to write your passwords down on a card or something... lie on it in a consistent, easy to remember way.
      - plaguepilled 4y ago
        There's an interesting general argument you're making here and I'm not prepared to immediately reject it, but one detail I will push back on hard is "use low complexity passwords for unimportant accounts". This is inadvisable. While the accounts direct utility may not be high, and it increases user overhead, a malicious party can accumulate access to tens of a user's "low value" accounts to farm metadata or incidentally relevant data. Additionally, the end user is not always the best judge of which accounts are even high value. My aunt insists, for example, that her Amazon account does not need a complex password because she "only" buys cookware from it. A silly example, but it illustrates the point.
  - crumpled 4y ago
    Definitely still vulnerable to a targeted attack, but you have fewer attackers than a service provider does by orders of magnitude.
- nirse 4y ago
  The _pass_ tool is an nice simple offline password manager, based on PGP, which works well for me. But I don't expect to be the victim of a targeted attack.
nilespotter 4y ago
Bitwarden didn't fail, there was no embarrassment. They actually encrypt the vault unlike Lastpass. There is heightened awareness around the various issues that came to light following the Lastpass attack, and PBKDF2 is one of them. In Bitwarden the iteration count is user configurable. Note also that Bitwarden provides its server software (and there is a great alternate implementation in vaultwarden); it doesn't have to be an "internet-connected data vault". Your position is not vindicated by TFA, but I applaud your caution and you are like 10% less of an old man howling at the moon.

plaguepilled 4y ago

What about offline only managers?

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Is it stored on a device which connects to the Internet? It's online! I think there's a role to play for things like KeePass when you need to share some secret values with family or team members, but it shouldn't be for high security things. Two-factor authentication is probably our best practical defense right now, and generally the best way to do that is not to have your password saved anywhere: Two-factor is "something you know and something you have". If your passwords are stored somewhere, it's just two things you have. If, like some Bitwarden users, you backup your 2FA tokens in your password manager, 2FA is just one thing you have. An using a password poor enough for you to remember and a two-factor token is better than just two separate apps on your phone.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  Ehhhh, I dunno on that one. I think "stored on an end user device" is quite different from "stored on a server with a public address". Firewall rules differ, for one. ISPs are more restrictive on what they flag as suspicious for domestic connections for two. Yes it would be better if the password manager were airgapped but that's a bad trade off in terms of user inefficiency and risk reduction IMO. In the same way, the reduction of attack surface by using post-its seems dulled by the consequent decrease in password complexity caused by people deciding their own passwords (since people subconsciously apply patterns to "random" strings they generate). This isn't to say "post its are bad" or "password managers good" but I am pushing back at the categorical statement of "post its good, managers bad". It seems contingent on risk profile.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    I will agree with you end user devices are generally safer. No points for ISPs being useful for anything, because they tend not to be, but firewalls for sure, and of course, the best accidental security protection ever developed: NAT. The other big difference is that end users have a single user's credentials, which is way less exciting than popping a large provider which can compromise millions of users at once. That being said regarding Vaultwarden, as someone who contributes to a self-hosting platform, I interact with a lot of self-hosters. And self-hosters do a lot of really dumb things that aren't secure, and, of course, tend to add a public DNS endpoint to their password manager. :P People put a lot of investment into the concept of making passwords super secure. For most passwords, that is silly and probably does more to increase risk. I would argue a password you can remember + 2FA is much safer than a password generated by a password manager, and any platform smart enough to support 2FA is also not going to give you unlimited password attempts. But the biggest issue I have with people's views on password complexity and password managers is the idea that all passwords should be equally secure. (Or even, that you "must use a unique password on every site".) I sign up for a lot of crud. Usually it's because something made me sign in to read or comment or something, or a one-off purchase where I'm not even storing my payment credentials. If we're talking about risk profile, these aren't passwords that need to be heavily secured. But if you treat them like they must be, you'll end up using a password manager, likely for all of your accounts, including making your more important accounts, like your email and bank, less secure. Understand the risk of an account getting compromised, and set it's password accordingly. Absolutely use bad worthless passwords on one-off sites that can't impact you much. Heck forget those passwords, and reset them if you ever need to come back to the site. Password resets are cheap for things you rarely go to. Turn 2FA on everywhere, and ensure your important passwords are high quality and unique. If you have a bad memory, create some sort of portable reminder, or if you have to write your passwords down on a card or something... lie on it in a consistent, easy to remember way.
    - plaguepilled 4y ago
      There's an interesting general argument you're making here and I'm not prepared to immediately reject it, but one detail I will push back on hard is "use low complexity passwords for unimportant accounts". This is inadvisable. While the accounts direct utility may not be high, and it increases user overhead, a malicious party can accumulate access to tens of a user's "low value" accounts to farm metadata or incidentally relevant data. Additionally, the end user is not always the best judge of which accounts are even high value. My aunt insists, for example, that her Amazon account does not need a complex password because she "only" buys cookware from it. A silly example, but it illustrates the point.
- crumpled 4y ago
  Definitely still vulnerable to a targeted attack, but you have fewer attackers than a service provider does by orders of magnitude.
nirse 4y ago
The _pass_ tool is an nice simple offline password manager, based on PGP, which works well for me. But I don't expect to be the victim of a targeted attack.

nilespotter 4y ago

Bitwarden didn't fail, there was no embarrassment. They actually encrypt the vault unlike Lastpass. There is heightened awareness around the various issues that came to light following the Lastpass attack, and PBKDF2 is one of them. In Bitwarden the iteration count is user configurable. Note also that Bitwarden provides its server software (and there is a great alternate implementation in vaultwarden); it doesn't have to be an "internet-connected data vault". Your position is not vindicated by TFA, but I applaud your caution and you are like 10% less of an old man howling at the moon.