4 ms·

to be fair level of security of systems back then was pretty fucking bad

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
observationist 10mo ago
6 characters or fewer passwords, if there were passwords at all. Phreaking still worked into the 90s, and all sorts of really stupid things were done without really thinking about the security at all. They'd print out receipts with the entire credit or debit card number and information on it, or carbon copy the card with an impression, and you'd see these receipts blowing around parking lots, or find entire bags or dumpsters full of them. Knowing an IP address might be sufficient information to gain access to systems that should have been secured. It's pretty amazing that things functioned as well as they did, that society was as trusting and trustworthy as it was, that we were able to build as much as we did with as relatively a tiny level of exploitation that happened. If the same level of vulnerability was as prevalent today as it was back then, civilization might collapse overnight.
- mjevans 10mo ago
  To be fair, back then it was relatively easy for anyone intelligent enough to be able to abuse any of that to have a well paying 'white collar' job with things like full health benefits, a pension, and more than sufficient income to support an entirely family SOLO. They even owned houses! When your life is set like that why risk trying to defraud someone a the cost of a nice suit when that's something that can be done legally and written off as a business expense on taxes?
- gritzko 10mo ago
  Just read AWS or CloudFlare outage postmortems and you will see: are still there, in the happy land.
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  We still print the routing and account number in full on paper checks, and that's all that's needed to do an ECH transaction. Yet there's not an alarming level of ECH fraud.
axiolite 10mo ago
In 1996? OpenBSD and Apache had been around for a year. PGP had been around for several years. HTTPS was used where needed. SecurID tokens were common for organizations that cared about security. Admittedly SSH wasn't around, but kerberos+rlogin and SSL+telnet was available. Organizations who cared about security would have SecurID tokens issued to their employees and required for login. Dial-in over phone lines, and requiring a password, was much less discoverable or exploitable than services exposed to the internet, today.
- wmf 10mo ago
  And every machine had 100 RCEs that you could discover with a few hours of effort.
  - axiolite 10mo ago
    Even back in 1996, OpenBSD emphasized security. By 2000 they claimed "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" at the very top of their website. Qmail was released in Dec 1995 and its security withstood scrutiny for quite a lot of years. I'd be interested in seeing just how many RCEs a modern security researcher could actually come up with from a 1996 release of BSDi, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, etc. I'd bet on just a handful. I can understand how, if your whole world was Windows 3.1 and 95, you'd feel that way about security at the time.
- jrpelkonen 10mo ago
  SSH was around, but not nearly as pervasive it is today. I have memories of having to shake my mouse around during the windows client installation to generate entropy. Fun times
  - axiolite 10mo ago
    I believe your recollection is off by several years... What you're describing is PuttyGen. According to Wikipedia, the first Putty release was in 1999. Archive.org doesn't have any snapshots of the Putty website before 2000, so that checks-out. The RSA patent didn't expire in the US until September 2000, so that's when free implementations like OpenSSH first became widely available. That's precisely when I started using it... The original SSH was first released mid-1995. There would have been a small number of installations in 1996, but absolutely negligible. It was not well-known until later, circa 2000.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

6 characters or fewer passwords, if there were passwords at all. Phreaking still worked into the 90s, and all sorts of really stupid things were done without really thinking about the security at all. They'd print out receipts with the entire credit or debit card number and information on it, or carbon copy the card with an impression, and you'd see these receipts blowing around parking lots, or find entire bags or dumpsters full of them. Knowing an IP address might be sufficient information to gain access to systems that should have been secured. It's pretty amazing that things functioned as well as they did, that society was as trusting and trustworthy as it was, that we were able to build as much as we did with as relatively a tiny level of exploitation that happened. If the same level of vulnerability was as prevalent today as it was back then, civilization might collapse overnight.

mjevans 10mo ago
To be fair, back then it was relatively easy for anyone intelligent enough to be able to abuse any of that to have a well paying 'white collar' job with things like full health benefits, a pension, and more than sufficient income to support an entirely family SOLO. They even owned houses! When your life is set like that why risk trying to defraud someone a the cost of a nice suit when that's something that can be done legally and written off as a business expense on taxes?
gritzko 10mo ago
Just read AWS or CloudFlare outage postmortems and you will see: are still there, in the happy land.
SoftTalker 10mo ago
We still print the routing and account number in full on paper checks, and that's all that's needed to do an ECH transaction. Yet there's not an alarming level of ECH fraud.

axiolite 10mo ago

In 1996? OpenBSD and Apache had been around for a year. PGP had been around for several years. HTTPS was used where needed. SecurID tokens were common for organizations that cared about security. Admittedly SSH wasn't around, but kerberos+rlogin and SSL+telnet was available. Organizations who cared about security would have SecurID tokens issued to their employees and required for login. Dial-in over phone lines, and requiring a password, was much less discoverable or exploitable than services exposed to the internet, today.

wmf 10mo ago
And every machine had 100 RCEs that you could discover with a few hours of effort.
- axiolite 10mo ago
  Even back in 1996, OpenBSD emphasized security. By 2000 they claimed "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" at the very top of their website. Qmail was released in Dec 1995 and its security withstood scrutiny for quite a lot of years. I'd be interested in seeing just how many RCEs a modern security researcher could actually come up with from a 1996 release of BSDi, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, etc. I'd bet on just a handful. I can understand how, if your whole world was Windows 3.1 and 95, you'd feel that way about security at the time.
jrpelkonen 10mo ago
SSH was around, but not nearly as pervasive it is today. I have memories of having to shake my mouse around during the windows client installation to generate entropy. Fun times
- axiolite 10mo ago
  I believe your recollection is off by several years... What you're describing is PuttyGen. According to Wikipedia, the first Putty release was in 1999. Archive.org doesn't have any snapshots of the Putty website before 2000, so that checks-out. The RSA patent didn't expire in the US until September 2000, so that's when free implementations like OpenSSH first became widely available. That's precisely when I started using it... The original SSH was first released mid-1995. There would have been a small number of installations in 1996, but absolutely negligible. It was not well-known until later, circa 2000.