5 ms·

I don't think anyone's nearly as concerned about case enforcement as they are about backend storage of passwords. I can assume some (plausibly safe) ways of sto

I don't think anyone's nearly as concerned about case enforcement as they are about backend storage of passwords. I can assume some (plausibly safe) ways of storing/verifying passwords that are case insensitive, but I'm not naive enough to assume they do.

eridius 14y ago
Why do you need to compare in a case-insensitive manner? Just lowercase the password before hashing it, and the backend doesn't even have to care.
elithrar 14y ago
> I don't think anyone's nearly as concerned about case enforcement as they are about backend storage of passwords. I can assume ways of storing/verifying passwords that are case insensitive, but I'm not naive enough to assume they do. Whilst I would hope they use a strong encryption scheme (with a variable work factor...), most of us know that even the biggest organisations in tech can fail miserably in this area. But, I don't believe the majority of the forum posters see things the way we do. Many of them obviously correlate "case sensitivity" with "strong password", even though that's not exactly true.
- e-dard 14y ago
  And by encryption scheme, you really mean hashing scheme. Yup, it's easy to get confused.
desas 14y ago
Quite surprised at the number of people who are worried about this, it's hardly complicated..
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  It's almost like I acknowledged that there were ways of doing it but expressed concerns for/of doubt that it was being done in the proper fashion due to the misguidedness of it. I'll say for a third time, as you're not the first person to reply in kind, I'm more than well aware of ways this could be done, but none of them meet the typical expectation of how passwords are hashed and I would guess/assume that someone is far more likely to be insecurely storing passwords than going out of their way to store a... reduced entropy version of users' passwords in their database.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    They're using SRP, which dictates that they're storing passwords (relatively) securely on their side. You don't have to guess; this stuff has been reversed.
    - uxp 14y ago
      Storing un-hashed passwords (encrypted or otherwise)? I'm largely unaware of crypto outside of the general "use bcrypt" webapp cases. SRP is a fairly unknown field to me. Edit: nevermind, you more or less confirmed this question further down this thread[1], and [2] [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4022996 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4022996 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023034
Steko 14y ago
From reddit: I've reversed Battle.net protocols in full. Here's some facts: Your plaintext password is never sent in plaintext. Old Battle.net clients (Diablo 2 and earlier) use what we call the 'old login system' (OLS), which uses Broken-SHA1 (SHA1 implemented with small bugs). Since Warcraft 3, the 'new login system' (NLS) is used, which uses SRPv6 (a standard for password exchange using public keys + RSA). Under OLS, the Broken-SHA1 of the password is stored. Under NLS, a value called the verifier is stored, which is derived from the (actual) SHA1 of the password. The protocols (both OLS and NLS) support case sensitivity just fine - the case insensitivity is a client-side issue. If you implement the protocol yourself, you can use a case sensitive password, but the game client won't be able to log in with it. We used to use that as a security feature in bots. After a small number of failed logins, your IP is temporarily banned. That means that bruteforcing is nearly impossible. Honestly, I don't understand why they have case insensitive passwords; but, at the same time, it doesn't make that much difference considering only a few password attempts are allowed before you're banned. http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/u2168/blizzard_intentionally_makes_passwords_noncase/c4rtmae http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/u2168/blizzard_inten...
- chives 14y ago
  >After a small number of failed logins, your IP is temporarily banned. That means that bruteforcing is nearly impossible. If someone in genuinely trying to crack passwords, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they know what proxy servers are and how to use them.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Are you saying they have a number of proxy servers comparable to the keyspace? Because I'm pretty sure there aren't that many IPs. EDIT: I just did a few calculations, there are 40 times as many elements in a 8-character password with only lowercase letters than there are IPv4 addresses.
  - Steko 14y ago
    After a certain number of attempts even the account is locked out of being logged into for a period. Also after being logged into from multiple IP's in a short period it will be locked. You guys seriously act like Blizzard just fell off the turnip truck here.
pcwalton 14y ago
Convert to some canonical case on the client side before applying SRP. It's very easy.

eridius 14y ago

Why do you need to compare in a case-insensitive manner? Just lowercase the password before hashing it, and the backend doesn't even have to care.

elithrar 14y ago

> I don't think anyone's nearly as concerned about case enforcement as they are about backend storage of passwords. I can assume ways of storing/verifying passwords that are case insensitive, but I'm not naive enough to assume they do. Whilst I would hope they use a strong encryption scheme (with a variable work factor...), most of us know that even the biggest organisations in tech can fail miserably in this area. But, I don't believe the majority of the forum posters see things the way we do. Many of them obviously correlate "case sensitivity" with "strong password", even though that's not exactly true.

e-dard 14y ago
And by encryption scheme, you really mean hashing scheme. Yup, it's easy to get confused.

desas 14y ago

Quite surprised at the number of people who are worried about this, it's hardly complicated..

drivebyacct2 14y ago
It's almost like I acknowledged that there were ways of doing it but expressed concerns for/of doubt that it was being done in the proper fashion due to the misguidedness of it. I'll say for a third time, as you're not the first person to reply in kind, I'm more than well aware of ways this could be done, but none of them meet the typical expectation of how passwords are hashed and I would guess/assume that someone is far more likely to be insecurely storing passwords than going out of their way to store a... reduced entropy version of users' passwords in their database.
- tptacek 14y ago
  They're using SRP, which dictates that they're storing passwords (relatively) securely on their side. You don't have to guess; this stuff has been reversed.
  - uxp 14y ago
    Storing un-hashed passwords (encrypted or otherwise)? I'm largely unaware of crypto outside of the general "use bcrypt" webapp cases. SRP is a fairly unknown field to me. Edit: nevermind, you more or less confirmed this question further down this thread[1], and [2] [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4022996 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4022996 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023034

Steko 14y ago

From reddit: I've reversed Battle.net protocols in full. Here's some facts: Your plaintext password is never sent in plaintext. Old Battle.net clients (Diablo 2 and earlier) use what we call the 'old login system' (OLS), which uses Broken-SHA1 (SHA1 implemented with small bugs). Since Warcraft 3, the 'new login system' (NLS) is used, which uses SRPv6 (a standard for password exchange using public keys + RSA). Under OLS, the Broken-SHA1 of the password is stored. Under NLS, a value called the verifier is stored, which is derived from the (actual) SHA1 of the password. The protocols (both OLS and NLS) support case sensitivity just fine - the case insensitivity is a client-side issue. If you implement the protocol yourself, you can use a case sensitive password, but the game client won't be able to log in with it. We used to use that as a security feature in bots. After a small number of failed logins, your IP is temporarily banned. That means that bruteforcing is nearly impossible. Honestly, I don't understand why they have case insensitive passwords; but, at the same time, it doesn't make that much difference considering only a few password attempts are allowed before you're banned. http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/u2168/blizzard_intentionally_makes_passwords_noncase/c4rtmae http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/u2168/blizzard_inten...

chives 14y ago
>After a small number of failed logins, your IP is temporarily banned. That means that bruteforcing is nearly impossible. If someone in genuinely trying to crack passwords, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they know what proxy servers are and how to use them.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Are you saying they have a number of proxy servers comparable to the keyspace? Because I'm pretty sure there aren't that many IPs. EDIT: I just did a few calculations, there are 40 times as many elements in a 8-character password with only lowercase letters than there are IPv4 addresses.
- Steko 14y ago
  After a certain number of attempts even the account is locked out of being logged into for a period. Also after being logged into from multiple IP's in a short period it will be locked. You guys seriously act like Blizzard just fell off the turnip truck here.

pcwalton 14y ago

Convert to some canonical case on the client side before applying SRP. It's very easy.