Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

theregister.co.uk

1–10 of 58 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

#5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means passwords like dadada can be reversed from hashes.

Not if it's salted, no?

It wasn't salted, but even then a targeted effort could almost certainly crack a password as bad as dadada almost immediately for a fast hash like sha1.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

#6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if it's salted, no?

It wasn't salted, but even then a targeted effort could almost certainly crack a password as bad as dadada almost immediately for a fast hash like sha1.

That's what I find hard to believe though. LinkedIn, a $20B giant, doesn't salt its passwords and uses something as weak as sha1? I would expect even a 1-person startup to do better than that.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

#7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't salted, but even then a targeted effort could almost certainly crack a password as bad as dadada almost immediately for a fast hash like sha1.

That's what I find hard to believe though. LinkedIn, a $20B giant, doesn't salt its passwords and uses something as weak as sha1? I would expect even a 1-person startup to do better than that.

That doesn't need to be true for this to have happened. Zuck is a high profile target, probably the hackers just prioritised cracking his account and such a weak password would be found reasonably quickly even using bcrypt

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

#8

Does this mean LinkedIn stores unencrypted passwords? That's pretty hard to believe.

In 2012 (the hack which this came from) their passwords were encrypted with SHA1 and not salted.

I have a feeling that today things are better than that, but who knows, maybe not.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Twitter and Pinterest password was 'dadada'

#10
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I find hard to believe though. LinkedIn, a $20B giant, doesn't salt its passwords and uses something as weak as sha1? I would expect even a 1-person startup to do better than that.

That doesn't need to be true for this to have happened. Zuck is a high profile target, probably the hackers just prioritised cracking his account and such a weak password would be found reasonably quickly even using bcrypt

Can you prevent targeted attacks, or is salting the state of the art?

What if the salt was derived from a key the user had to supply and wasn't stored anywhere?

Post reply on HN