4 ms·
Sorry, man, I kind of can't take "disingenuous" accusations seriously as that was the word on the tip of my tongue when I read your surprising statement earlier
by thorax 17y ago
Sorry, man, I kind of can't take "disingenuous" accusations seriously as that was the word on the tip of my tongue when I read your surprising statement earlier in the thread. It doesn't sound like the same person I read before, nor from someone with your (deserved) status as a learned engineer on security matters.
The point you disagreed with was whether this was an embarrassing security flaw:
> "Embarassing security flaw"? Come on.
and that's what I'm calling you on based on our earlier discussions. I'm not making any point about how this compares to other security flaws, I'm just trying to figure out where you really stand on plaintext.
An earlier quote from you as I try to sort this out:
> People get to access password hashes as soon as you mess up a single database query. The idea behind storing safe hashes is to prevent your stupid mistakes from screwing over every one of your users. The stupidest people of all are the ones who assume they aren't going to make stupid mistakes.
So, the question at hand: Is it an embarrassing security flaw to use plaintext passwords for a modern, respected website?
- tptacek 17y agoIt may be embarassing, and it may be a flaw, but if you sent it to Bugtraq or asked ZDI to pay you for it, you'd get laughed at. I'm not making that up, it's obviously true, so why are you arguing with me about it? If you contract a team from Matasano to assess your website, and all we come back with is "you store passwords insecurely", we're the ones who will be embarassed. Sorry. Hate on 37s all you want, but in no parallel universe is "weak password storage" a gameover.