Live data from Hacker News

86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

troyhunt.com

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#31

If you're responsible for running a website, how are you going to be resilient against attackers who come to your site with legitimate usernames and passwords of your members? One way is to email the user when they log in from a new device or computer. They then have to enter a 6 digit one time password from the email. Someone who grabs the users email and password from a breach would also need access to their email.

These people reuse passwords so logging into their email is the same.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#32
post #15

86% of my passwords are for low consequence sites. How much should I care if someone hacks my handle and posts ads on a chat site? Or reads registration-required articles under my registration? Or etc etc.

1. With a password manager, you don't have to think anymore if a site is high-consequence or low-consequence. 2. What kinds of websites that require a sign-in are actually low-consequence? I can't think of any from the top of my head, but that's probably because I'm pretty reluctant to sign up to new sites.

To be honest, the first one that comes to mind is HN. There is zero consequence if someone was to get a hold of my credentials here — I don't care about the score and I can still recover the bookmarks.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#33
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, please don't. This is arduous for those of us who like a bit of privacy and regularly clear their cookies etc.

Why not whitelist the cookies of sites where you're going to log right back in?

That's actually a good idea! It doesn't work for Google or Facebook tough, or other services I explicitely don't log right back in.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#35
post #15

86% of my passwords are for low consequence sites. How much should I care if someone hacks my handle and posts ads on a chat site? Or reads registration-required articles under my registration? Or etc etc.

1. With a password manager, you don't have to think anymore if a site is high-consequence or low-consequence. 2. What kinds of websites that require a sign-in are actually low-consequence? I can't think of any from the top of my head, but that's probably because I'm pretty reluctant to sign up to new sites.

Low-consquence? Typically one-off purchases from random internet vendors; if no saved credit card details, just a way to view past orders. Risk is leakage of more PII, like address.

Forum logins risk reputational damage, but otherwise are reasonably limited. Some people use specialist forums to ask one-off questions, for example.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#36

At bare minimum websites should use 2FA - a simple TOTP on any smartphone will do wonders. But, the issue is that 86% of all websites offer so little value that 86% of people would just not bother using the site if they had to do the 2FA dance each time. That is the fundamental problem here - not people reusing passwords, or password policies that break when encountering my password manager. It's not surprising peopl…

Out of curiosity, I just looked at the list of sites in my password manager, and at least 3/4 of them are sites that I shouldn't even need an account to use! Mostly online shopping sites the wouldn't let me checkout without an account and forums that wouldn't let me do some function without an account.

If all online shops were required to let me buy something without creating an account, my "password footprint" would be about 1/2 of what it is.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#37
When I feel like a security goon's arbitrary and capricious password policy is irrational and counterproductive, I make my passwords worse in the hopes that I have to someday read it to someone, or perhaps it gets spilt outin the open, and then everyone will see how forcing me to pick a password that adheres to certain characteristics solved nothing.

Just wait. Someday you will see dumps of pwnt password that look like:

  Password-1234
  Password_1234
  Password!1234
  Password&1234
  Password?1234
  Password$1234
And that is rated as a "VERY STRONG" password.

Have fun with your character diversity, and your 90 day password expiration rotation schemes. Go ahead and try to force me into a corner. I'm still picking terrible passwords and I'm picking especially terrible ones because someone out there is trying to pull my strings.

Pull my strings. Make me more predictable within your little security policy world. See how that plays out.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#38
post #15

86% of my passwords are for low consequence sites. How much should I care if someone hacks my handle and posts ads on a chat site? Or reads registration-required articles under my registration? Or etc etc.

It comes down to threat modeling and compartmentation.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#39
I'll grab the data and make some easy to use bloom filters so nobody has to rely on a third party API to send passwords to. I can make different filters for hashes grouped by count so that I can get a rough estimate of how exposed it is.

Re: 86% of CrashCrate subscribers used passwords already leaked in other breaches

#40
post #15

86% of my passwords are for low consequence sites. How much should I care if someone hacks my handle and posts ads on a chat site? Or reads registration-required articles under my registration? Or etc etc.

1. With a password manager, you don't have to think anymore if a site is high-consequence or low-consequence. 2. What kinds of websites that require a sign-in are actually low-consequence? I can't think of any from the top of my head, but that's probably because I'm pretty reluctant to sign up to new sites.

> 2. What kinds of websites that require a sign-in are actually low-consequence?

It's usually not a function of the site, but a function of the site and the user. pg would probably care more about his HN account than user051783254. That said, some sites where I expect the majority of users (mostly the non-paying ones, but perhaps even the paying ones depending on the payment mechanism) would probably not care about their accounts being hijacked might include: HN, StackOverflow, CodeProject, AllTrails, Disqus, Last.fm, SlickDeals, etc.

Post reply on HN