Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#91

Post by mrb »

cbsmith wrote: post #71

There may be a security issue here, but I think there is a distinct possibility that it certainly isn't what people think. Pandora needn't store the password on their servers. Just posted this to the Google+ thread: Okay, I just did a simple test of what happens when I change my Pandora password. There is a record of HTML local storage keyed on "jStorage" which appears to be a giant JSON blob. A specific attribute wh…

There appears to be a real security issue that every one missed in this thread: the password does not appear to be encrypted, but merely obfuscated, using the same obfuscation technique as the one used to obfuscate the randomly generated JSON attribute names.

Which means that even after logging out of pandora, the password would remain in the HTML local storage, and could be de-obfuscated, and log back into pandora.

I am currently working on reverse-engineering the obfuscation algorithm...

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#92

Post by aiiane »

cbsmith wrote: post #90
aiiane wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re #1: There's still a matter of degree, however - this takes zero technical knowledge and zero external tools, works on every platform that Pandora runs on, and requires maybe 5 seconds of time. Re #2: Again, it's a difference of degree. Invalid TLS certs will at least give a browser warning that a user isn't used to seeing (in modern browsers), cluing them in that something might be up. Sure, some users might bypas…

#1: You know what also requires zero technical knowledge and zero external tools and requires maybe 5 seconds of my time? Typing in a new password for the account and clicking "save". #2: It needn't be an invalid TLS cert. It could be a valid TLS cert pointing to another domain. The browser provides no warning and you only notice it if the check the domain is different from the one you expect. Watch out for domains t…

#1 - yes, which is also a problem! But is actually less serious, because that doesn't give you knowledge of the old password which could be shared with another site. (Obviously in the ideal case it wouldn't be, but let's face it, it is for the vast majority of users.)

#2 - which is something that browser vendors are working to address (e.g. by displaying non-ascii characters in slightly different ways, e.g. punycode, and by blacklisting domains used for phishing, etc).

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#93

Post by cbsmith »

mrb wrote: post #91
cbsmith wrote: post #71

There may be a security issue here, but I think there is a distinct possibility that it certainly isn't what people think. Pandora needn't store the password on their servers. Just posted this to the Google+ thread: Okay, I just did a simple test of what happens when I change my Pandora password. There is a record of HTML local storage keyed on "jStorage" which appears to be a giant JSON blob. A specific attribute wh…

There appears to be a real security issue that every one missed in this thread: the password does not appear to be encrypted, but merely obfuscated , using the same obfuscation technique as the one used to obfuscate the randomly generated JSON attribute names. Which means that even after logging out of pandora, the password would remain in the HTML local storage, and could be de-obfuscated, and log back into pandora.…

The attribute name is obfuscated, which makes it harder to programmatically find the password (presuming it is under a different name for each account). The password itself is stored encrypted.

Here's the thing: if someone has this kind of access to your browser, wouldn't it be simpler to install a simple browser plug-in that scrapes off any data typed in to a password input field?

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#94

Post by cbsmith »

aiiane wrote: post #92
cbsmith wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1: You know what also requires zero technical knowledge and zero external tools and requires maybe 5 seconds of my time? Typing in a new password for the account and clicking "save". #2: It needn't be an invalid TLS cert. It could be a valid TLS cert pointing to another domain. The browser provides no warning and you only notice it if the check the domain is different from the one you expect. Watch out for domains t…

#1 - yes, which is also a problem! But is actually less serious, because that doesn't give you knowledge of the old password which could be shared with another site. (Obviously in the ideal case it wouldn't be, but let's face it, it is for the vast majority of users.) #2 - which is something that browser vendors are working to address (e.g. by displaying non-ascii characters in slightly different ways, e.g. punycode,…

#1: It might be a problem, but it is also a clear indication to even a naive user that if they leave their browser logged in to Pandora, their account be compromised.

#2: Right. So there is a possibility that some day in the future, if you are really careful and check your TLS certificate every time you do something with your password, Pandora will be exposing you to a huge gaping hole, that you would otherwise only be exposed to if you used the Apple Store, Amazon, Ebay....

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#95

Post by aiiane »

cbsmith wrote: post #94
aiiane wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 - yes, which is also a problem! But is actually less serious, because that doesn't give you knowledge of the old password which could be shared with another site. (Obviously in the ideal case it wouldn't be, but let's face it, it is for the vast majority of users.) #2 - which is something that browser vendors are working to address (e.g. by displaying non-ascii characters in slightly different ways, e.g. punycode,…

#1: It might be a problem, but it is also a clear indication to even a naive user that if they leave their browser logged in to Pandora, their account be compromised. #2: Right. So there is a possibility that some day in the future, if you are really careful and check your TLS certificate every time you do something with your password, Pandora will be exposing you to a huge gaping hole, that you would otherwise only…

The gist of your argument appears to be "you'll never be perfectly secure, so there's no reason to try to improve things incrementally".

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#96

Post by jlgreco »

peterwwillis wrote: post #88
masterzora wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When password reuse is common (that is to say, in the real world) it is always the time and place for password security. Sure, you and I know that we should have different passwords for every one of the hundreds of websites we've ever visited and that they should each be as strong as the potential damages of each website warrants and that we should change them on a relatively regular basis. And we are supergood about…

Your argument, then, is that Pandora should apply password hashing to keep people from being compromised elsewhere? Assuming they only had two online accounts this might make sense. Assuming every single one of their accounts, all the same credentials, had perfectly implemented password hashing, this might make sense. But that is bullshit and we both know it. There will always be a bad implementation, or a mistake, o…

> Assuming every single one of their accounts, all the same credentials, had perfectly implemented password hashing, this might make sense.

It is Pandora's ethical duty to do their part. And it is the ethical duty of other sites to do their part.

It is the user's duty to do their part.

Any one of these parties slacking does not excuse slacking on the part of others.

This is not a perfect world. We all know there are people who use the same password everywhere. Since we know that, it is our responsibility to do our part.

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#97

Post by ayush_gupta »

telecuda wrote: post #18

I wish someone would make a one-pager that says: "Hey CEO, your site doesn't hash passwords. Here's why it's bad. Here's how it got other companies in hot water. Here's how simple it is to fix. Forward this to your tech guy. Oh, and until you do, we'll put your company on this wall of shame." Every time I receive a welcome email showing my password in plain-text, I'd gladly spend 5 minutes finding the email of an exe…

I've done this a couple of times too and usually it does get fixed in a week!

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#98

Post by Evbn »

rapind wrote: post #85
stcredzero wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This could happen, but do we have any evidence that it has? I'm being serious...I constantly hear about widespread leaks of passwords, but the most I hear about it is people having their email hacked by a botnet to...send spam. The more password databases are hacked, the better password cracking becomes, and the more sites black hats get access to. It's a vicious cycle. Yes, people sometimes do get large amounts wi…

This. For more information on why this is the case, here's a pretty good article on it. http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/08/passwords-under-assa... The simplified version: Every time a password is cracked it is added to a database of hashes used to hack other databases. Essentially crowdsourced cracking.

That only works on broken sites that don't salt.

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#99

Post by ayush_gupta »

This is terrible. No site has any business "knowing" my password. To me, not hashing is a violation of my trust right there. I'm a paid Pandora user and have been their evangelist for many years and supporter through all their tough times. Just seeing my password in plain text in the DOM Inspector makes me embarrassed. This should have never happened. They should fix this. Soon.

Re: Pandora doesn't hash their passwords

#100

Post by Evbn »

pbreit wrote: post #64
ghayes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense. Three days after you sign-up (i.e. no cache), if they are sending you your password, it can only be because it's plaintext. Unless they are bruteforcing the hash for your convenience... :-)

They could two-way encrypt which seems safer to me than plain text but some disagree (I'm not sure why).

Only if the keys are well controlled.
Post reply on HN