Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?
You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
11–20 of 226 posts
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#12Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?
1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything.
2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#13Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is links leak. In theory a 256 hex-character link (so 1024 bits) is near infinitely more secure than a 32 character username and 32 character password, as to guess it https://site.com/[256chars] As there's 2^1024 combinations. You'd never brute force it vs https://site,com/[32chars] with a password of [32chars] As there's 2^256 combinations. Again you can't brute force it, but it's more likely than the 2^…
Dorking is the technique of using public search engine indexes to uncover information that is presumed to be private. It has been used to uncover webcams, credit card numbers, confidential documents, and even spies. The problem is the website administers who are encoding authentication tokens into URL state, not the naive crawlers that find them.
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#15Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#16Can someone smarter explain to me what is different between? 1) domain.com/login user: John password: 5 char random password 2) domain.com/12 char random url If we assume both either have the same bruteforce/rate limiting protection (or none at all). Why is 1 more safe than 2?
Two things: 1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything. 2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#17Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#18Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#19Any systems I've built that need this type of thing have used Signed URLs with a short lifetime - usually only a few minutes. And the URLs are generally an implementation detail that's not directly shown to the user (although they can probably see them in the browser debug view).
Re: You cannot simply publicly access private secure links, can you?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things: 1. "Password" is a magic word that makes people less likely to just paste it into anything. 2. Username + passwords are two separate pieces of information that are not normally copy-pasted at the same time or have a canonical way of being stored next to each other.
1) Make sense. 2) Not sure about that. If someone shares their password with someone else they probably share both the username/email and the password