3 ms·

Are there any advantages of LastPass over KeePass? I've always been very wary about storing passwords in a third-party hosted webapp.

by Gormo 13y ago

coryfklein 13y ago
I'm not familiar with KeePass, but I can tell you that LastPass does not know your master password. They just keep an encrypted copy of your password database which gets decrypted locally when you type in the password. For this reason, if you lose your master password, LastPass can't unlock your passwords for you. You'll have to go to the NSA for that.
rpdillon 13y ago
I'm not a security expert, but this seems to be a fair question. I use KeePass (have for years). One of my problems with LastPass is that the whole system is bootstrapped over HTTPS, which is has some insecurities. Essentially, LastPass sends your browser JavaScript via HTTPS which is then used to encrypt all your passwords using AES and send them over the net. The problem is that the original JavaScript payload could be compromised by third parties that have access to the root CA. I realize that revelations about HTTPS insecurity are new and limited to nation-state attacks, but we're talking about all your passwords, here. Putting HTTPS insecurity aside, we really shouldn't be implementing crypto in JavaScript. http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ KeePass is both native and open-source, so it avoids many of the problems that LastPass presents, IMHO. Simply install the client program and sync via SparkleShare, git, Dropbox, UbuntuOne, Google Drive, etc.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  Ehh, going to come out and say Matasano is wrong here. You can do crypto in JS, just don't download it every time (distribute signed packages via browser add-ons). The part of the article that attacks extensions just makes a bunch of assumptions (like, you're going to download scripts and eval them from your extension). It's a leap. Plus that article attacks JS doing crypto that the server will decrypt (which, yes is useless, use TLS). It doesn't address using browser add-ons to do AES encryption, have your data stored on the server in encrypted form, and only decrypted when you download it again. Is this method flawed? Only if you do a web-app instead of a browser add-on. Once you package the client code, it can be just as hard to break as something like KeePass (assuming the add-on itself has a decent security policy, ie don't eval()code from random places). Plus, modern browsers now have "window.crypto" which provides a PRNG. So there goes that argument. The article is just completely wrong in many ways. The only valid point I see it make is about garbage collection and potential for reading decrypted memory directly (MANY languages have this problem, not just JS). One of the points you brought up is extremely valid though: LastPass is closed-source, so it's nearly impossible to truly validate the crypto. Keepass (I also use it) is a much better option, and great when paired with some sort of sync utility.

Are there any advantages of LastPass over KeePass? I've always been very wary about storing passwords in a third-party hosted webapp.

by Gormo 13y ago

Are there any advantages of LastPass over KeePass? I've always been very wary about storing passwords in a third-party hosted webapp.

coryfklein 13y ago

I'm not familiar with KeePass, but I can tell you that LastPass does not know your master password. They just keep an encrypted copy of your password database which gets decrypted locally when you type in the password. For this reason, if you lose your master password, LastPass can't unlock your passwords for you. You'll have to go to the NSA for that.

rpdillon 13y ago

I'm not a security expert, but this seems to be a fair question. I use KeePass (have for years). One of my problems with LastPass is that the whole system is bootstrapped over HTTPS, which is has some insecurities. Essentially, LastPass sends your browser JavaScript via HTTPS which is then used to encrypt all your passwords using AES and send them over the net. The problem is that the original JavaScript payload could be compromised by third parties that have access to the root CA. I realize that revelations about HTTPS insecurity are new and limited to nation-state attacks, but we're talking about all your passwords, here. Putting HTTPS insecurity aside, we really shouldn't be implementing crypto in JavaScript. http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ KeePass is both native and open-source, so it avoids many of the problems that LastPass presents, IMHO. Simply install the client program and sync via SparkleShare, git, Dropbox, UbuntuOne, Google Drive, etc.

orthecreedence 13y ago
Ehh, going to come out and say Matasano is wrong here. You can do crypto in JS, just don't download it every time (distribute signed packages via browser add-ons). The part of the article that attacks extensions just makes a bunch of assumptions (like, you're going to download scripts and eval them from your extension). It's a leap. Plus that article attacks JS doing crypto that the server will decrypt (which, yes is useless, use TLS). It doesn't address using browser add-ons to do AES encryption, have your data stored on the server in encrypted form, and only decrypted when you download it again. Is this method flawed? Only if you do a web-app instead of a browser add-on. Once you package the client code, it can be just as hard to break as something like KeePass (assuming the add-on itself has a decent security policy, ie don't eval()code from random places). Plus, modern browsers now have "window.crypto" which provides a PRNG. So there goes that argument. The article is just completely wrong in many ways. The only valid point I see it make is about garbage collection and potential for reading decrypted memory directly (MANY languages have this problem, not just JS). One of the points you brought up is extremely valid though: LastPass is closed-source, so it's nearly impossible to truly validate the crypto. Keepass (I also use it) is a much better option, and great when paired with some sort of sync utility.