4 ms·

So your point is it is less secure because the same weak feature is being used more frequently? > all it takes is someone to intercept those emails on their wa

by homakov 12y ago

So your point is it is less secure because the same weak feature is being used more frequently? > all it takes is someone to intercept those emails on their way from your SMTP server out to the wider internet it doesn't matter when some user will create a reset request. Because you can do it for him, right? There are tons of services out there generating a password for you and sending it over in plain text, which is exactly what I proposed. Do we see it heavily abused? The opposite is true - those services are more safe because they got rid of reused passwords. Also there's a bunch of techniques i didn't describe to prevent some attacks. When user is trying to login save a secret token1 in a cookie and send token2 to their email. When the user clicks this link verify old cookies. This makes passive global wiretapping less useful (if it was your concern). Still vulnerable to more targeted attacks (enter username, wait for email, reuse cookie), but so "reset password" is.

stephenr 12y ago
> it doesn't matter when some user will create a reset request. Because you can do it for him, right? only if I know the user's email address for this given service. with your system the attacker will get a regular flow of emails like this, and can even just track the emails as they're used, so as to then use them later to create a new authenticated session without arousing the suspicions of the user. even if an attacker was lucky enough to capture a password reset email, they either have to use it immediately (or it will become invalid) or do a later, second password reset. Either way, the user still knows at the very least that something isn't right. > There are tons of services out there generating a password for you and sending it over in plain text and this is fucking atrocious from a security stand point. > Do we see it heavily abused? The opposite is true - those services are more safe because they got rid of reused passwords. Care to name some? I'm not aware of any major service, website or application that relies on a OTP via email for primary authentication. > Still vulnerable to more targeted attacks (enter username, wait for email, reuse cookie), but so "reset password" is. You still don't seem to accept that knowing your account was compromised is a security feature. With your system there is potentially ZERO indication to the end user that their account has been compromised. That is FUCKING TERRIFYING to me, and that it isn't to you, is even MORE FUCKING TERRIFYING. Please stop making claims as if you have any fucking idea about security.
- homakov 12y ago
  > potentially ZERO indication to the end user that their account has been compromised It's not exactly zero. For example you can generate new "security image" every time user logs in. If last time it was some cat and now it's dog, then someone logged in meanwhile. And that's, frankly, is not as terrifying to me as reused passwords. >Please stop making claims as if you have any fucking idea about security. I would be excited to see links to your security write ups, please share :)
  - stephenr 12y ago
    You keep making suggestions on the fly which clearly shows you haven't thought this through, and can't accept that its just a fucking terrible idea. A "security image" doesn't work if it changes every time. First off - you're putting the burden of maintaining security onto the user - how the fuck am I supposed to remember what random picture you showed me? You can consider this entire discussion thread my fucking security write up. The comments on your own show that anyone else who listens to you has the same reaction, so it's no surprise you resort to ad hominem attacks implying that only someone with published security write ups is qualified to call your idea fucking stupid.
    - homakov 12y ago
      I made it on the fly because "know that you've been hacked" is not important at all for regular users. They can't remember a random picture - true, but they also don't care if their password doesn't work anymore. That's all your (and everyone else's) reasoning so far. Why can't you accept that if your email was hacked you will learn about it pretty quickly anyway? (because your paypal funds are stolen). > that only someone with published security write ups is qualified to call your idea fucking stupid I didn't say that, your answers are on spot and questions raised are valid, however I am surprised you prioritize "password was changed" issue over entire reused passwords problem for normal users. To make it clear: you dont care that people reuse passwords and it is a #1 problem, you only care if email account is compromised and if attackers decide to silently spy on one of your other accounts instead of getting the profit now. If that's true we just have different opinions and there's nothing to discuss here.

by homakov 12y ago

stephenr 12y ago

> it doesn't matter when some user will create a reset request. Because you can do it for him, right? only if I know the user's email address for this given service. with your system the attacker will get a regular flow of emails like this, and can even just track the emails as they're used, so as to then use them later to create a new authenticated session without arousing the suspicions of the user. even if an attacker was lucky enough to capture a password reset email, they either have to use it immediately (or it will become invalid) or do a later, second password reset. Either way, the user still knows at the very least that something isn't right. > There are tons of services out there generating a password for you and sending it over in plain text and this is fucking atrocious from a security stand point. > Do we see it heavily abused? The opposite is true - those services are more safe because they got rid of reused passwords. Care to name some? I'm not aware of any major service, website or application that relies on a OTP via email for primary authentication. > Still vulnerable to more targeted attacks (enter username, wait for email, reuse cookie), but so "reset password" is. You still don't seem to accept that knowing your account was compromised is a security feature. With your system there is potentially ZERO indication to the end user that their account has been compromised. That is FUCKING TERRIFYING to me, and that it isn't to you, is even MORE FUCKING TERRIFYING. Please stop making claims as if you have any fucking idea about security.

homakov 12y ago
> potentially ZERO indication to the end user that their account has been compromised It's not exactly zero. For example you can generate new "security image" every time user logs in. If last time it was some cat and now it's dog, then someone logged in meanwhile. And that's, frankly, is not as terrifying to me as reused passwords. >Please stop making claims as if you have any fucking idea about security. I would be excited to see links to your security write ups, please share :)
- stephenr 12y ago
  You keep making suggestions on the fly which clearly shows you haven't thought this through, and can't accept that its just a fucking terrible idea. A "security image" doesn't work if it changes every time. First off - you're putting the burden of maintaining security onto the user - how the fuck am I supposed to remember what random picture you showed me? You can consider this entire discussion thread my fucking security write up. The comments on your own show that anyone else who listens to you has the same reaction, so it's no surprise you resort to ad hominem attacks implying that only someone with published security write ups is qualified to call your idea fucking stupid.
  - homakov 12y ago
    I made it on the fly because "know that you've been hacked" is not important at all for regular users. They can't remember a random picture - true, but they also don't care if their password doesn't work anymore. That's all your (and everyone else's) reasoning so far. Why can't you accept that if your email was hacked you will learn about it pretty quickly anyway? (because your paypal funds are stolen). > that only someone with published security write ups is qualified to call your idea fucking stupid I didn't say that, your answers are on spot and questions raised are valid, however I am surprised you prioritize "password was changed" issue over entire reused passwords problem for normal users. To make it clear: you dont care that people reuse passwords and it is a #1 problem, you only care if email account is compromised and if attackers decide to silently spy on one of your other accounts instead of getting the profit now. If that's true we just have different opinions and there's nothing to discuss here.