Live data from Hacker News

Password managers less secure than promised

ethz.ch

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#11
post #2

Has there been a similar evaluation of 1Password?

> Much like the other products we analyse, 1Password lacks authentication of public keys. This trivially enables sharing attacks similar to BW09, LP07 and DL02, something that the 1Password whitepaper...

> IMPACT. Complete compromise of vault confidentiality and integrity. The adversary can read and decrypt all vault con- tents encrypted after the attack, including passwords, credit card information, secure notes, and other sensitive data stored in the vault. Similarly, they can inject new items into the vault after the attack. REQUIREMENTS. The client fetches key material from the server, for example due to the user logging in on a new device. If executed on a non-empty vault, the attack results in the client losing access to all items already in their vault, while leaking any new items added to the vault after the attack took place. If the attack is executed at the time of vault creation, the attack is effectively undetectable by the client, since it cannot distinguish between a ciphertext it created and the ciphertext created by the server during the attack. PROPOSED MITIGATION. A straightforward mitigation is to have the client sign vault keys using the RSA private key in the keyset before encrypting them with the RSA public key. Ideally, two different key pairs would be used for...

from the paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/058.pdf

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#13
post #7

Save you the click. The researchers demonstrated 12 attacks on Bitwarden, 7 on LastPass and 6 on Dashlane

a better summary from the site:

> We examine the extent to which security against a fully malicious server holds true for three leading vendors who make the Zero Knowledge Encryption claim: Bitwarden, LastPass and Dashlane [...] The attacks range in severity, from integrity violations of targeted user vaults to the complete compromise of all the vaults associated with an organisation.

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#15
post #9

caveat not properly addressed in the blog post: all "attacks" are assuming full takeover of web servers, which is certainly a scenario that should be protected against, but isn't really a vulnerability unless chained with something else. almost all online services would be "vulnerable" in this way - take almost any login system. an RCE on a system hosting a login page would obviously be vulnerable to account takeover…

Not if the advertise zero knowledge encryption. As far as I understand the password sharing / collaboration feature is often the problem.

Second: The provider can get the passwords with a simple server change.

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#17

That's why KeePass is still the king. Offline vault > online vault.

KeePassXC can even still be online, too; example: https://logandark.net/passwords.kdbx

It's not centralized, of course; you still have to download the entire database, and then potentially upload the entire database again for any changes; but it doesn't have these vulnerabilities.

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#18

That's why KeePass is still the king. Offline vault > online vault.

I mostly agree! However, I plan on posting an article on HN soon discussing some of the issues with the .kdbx file format that KeePass and derivatives use within the next couple of days. KeePass has such great potential, but falls short compared to some of its (local) competitors.

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#19
post #16

> cloud-based password managers. Enough said. This kind of stuff should be offline only. If you need to access your password database on multiple devices, set up a LAN and/or a Wireguard tunnel for remote access.

Hard agree, but Average Joes have no idea what any of those words mean let alone the means to do it.

Re: Password managers less secure than promised

#20
post #18

That's why KeePass is still the king. Offline vault > online vault.

I mostly agree! However, I plan on posting an article on HN soon discussing some of the issues with the .kdbx file format that KeePass and derivatives use within the next couple of days. KeePass has such great potential, but falls short compared to some of its (local) competitors.

Looking forward to
Post reply on HN