Live data from Hacker News

Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

kaizoku.dev

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#151
post #88

I wrote a program to generate passwords based on user input about 10 years ago. I still use it today and a few teams I have worked with still use it. I called it DPG. Deterministic Password Generator. It is a similar concept. I have implemented it in Go, C++, Java and Python. I wish the idea of generating passwords when needed rather than storing and retrieving them was more popular. Traditional password Managers are…

So if a site is compromised and requires a password rotation, do you just never use that site again?

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're just adding friction to a process that should be as frictionless as possible, because friction causes people to make bad decisions Integrating a password manager with a browser is too fragile and risky way of using both. It is best to have them fully separated so they can't communicate. They should communicate exclusively via the user. The login process should have some friction and should not be fully autom…

> Integrating a password manager with a browser is too fragile and risky way of using both. It is best to have them fully separated so they can't communicate. They should communicate exclusively via the user. Which gets targeted more and why, the user or the password manager? If you are suggesting that we should be manually entering passwords into sites as copied/observed from our password managers, that removes the…

this requires you to only remember one horcrux to add a layer to security, and it survives key rotation. there is a difference.

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#153

This is not an improvement over just using the click-to-login features of modern password managers. Modern password managers generate strong random passwords and integrate with login forms in your desktop browser and on your mobile device. There are some exceptions with sites or applications that don't behave well, but as a general rule: you should not ever need to know any of your passwords anyway. You should be cli…

> you're just adding friction to a process that should be as frictionless as possible, because friction causes people to make bad decisions Integrating a password manager with a browser is too fragile and risky way of using both. It is best to have them fully separated so they can't communicate. They should communicate exclusively via the user. The login process should have some friction and should not be fully autom…

> Integrating a password manager with a browser is too fragile and risky way of using both. It is best to have them fully separated so they can't communicate. They should communicate exclusively via the user.

Passwords are about proving identity. Using high entropy passwords for greater confidence of user identity is only part of the equation, the user needs to be able to identify the validity of the service as well.

The greatest benefit of an autofill enabled password manager is it handles the task of URL validation before offering up credentials. When you split up that function, now it's back to relying on humans to get everything right on verifying credentials get submitted only to the intended service.

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#154
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> attacker can create a website and ask you to join it under the hope you'll reuse your horcrux on the attacker's site. I don't think that reusing the same pepper (horcrux string) for all sites would be best practice.

That defeats the point of using a password manager more or less. You're just remembering individial passwords but it's even more complicated now.

That's ok - just use two different password managers and merge the parts manually on login ;)

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard good things about "Methods of Rationality". Worth reading?

I think so, particularly if you've read Rowling's books and were annoyed by many of the protagonists and supporting characters for a variety of reasons. If nothing else, "Methods" succeeds in giving agency to more characters, including the villains (not necessarily to their, or Harry's, benefit), and explores/tests the "system" of magic in more depth.

>> and explores/tests the "system" of magic in more depth.

I particularly liked the section where Harry is trying to find out how magic "works". He starts with the gross physicalities: the materials the wands are made of, the sounds of the recited spells. He ends up with the mathematics underlying physics, learning how to create new spells. He uses his new found knowledge to create a very powerful weapon spell he uses to kill a mountain troll. If you want to know how the spell works, you'll have to read the book. I highly recommend it. (I've read it more than once.)

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#156
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I really disagree with you there. This is the same concept but applied client-side instead of server-side. But “client-side peppering” won’t get you to the front page of HN..

I think these concepts are significantly different - as different as salts and peppers at least. Peppering helps protect against database access revealing password. Horcrux protects against password manager access. Peppering is stored on the server, but outside the database. Horcruxes are stored in the user's head. You could do both, one, or neither. Client-side peppering would be having part of your password outside…

> Peppering helps protect against database access revealing password. Horcrux protects against password manager access.

What is a password manager but a database of your passwords? Peppering is a token that is not in the database of passwords that needs to be applied for the password to be correct. Whether it's applied by an application, or a person doesn't seem relevant, as what is an application but a set of instructions a person could do carried out automatically?

I don't care what it's called, but I don't really see a difference in the scenarios you've outlined.

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#157
post #46

I saw this post a while ago in a different forum. My note for it hasn't changed: This is called peppering[0]. It's a counterpart to salting, in that you add a random value to a password to make it harder to reverse the password hash, but unlike the salt, it's not stored in the password database. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(cryptography)

This is very different from peppering. Salt/pepper is all about server storage/verification. The "path" is plain, hash, salted hash, peppered hash.

Plain:server stores the password, client sends the password - matching is simple. When server is breached, all passwords are known.

Hash:server stores a hash of the password, the type of hash. Client sends the plain password, server hashes and compares. When server is breached, most passwords are known, by way of rainbowtables/brute force.

Salted hash: same as hash, servers additionally stores random salt pr account. Hash is over plain password and hash. When server is compromised, weak/dictionary passwords are compromised via brute force.

Pepered passwords: an additional secret is used for salting. The stored hash now depends on plaintext password, plain salt, "secret" pepper. When server is compromised, most likely pepper is compromised too. If not (eg: only database/backups are exposed), pepper needs to be recovered before brute force of passwords is viable. If the attacker has an account (know a password) it's straightforward to attempt to brute force the pepper, but unless it's weak (eg not a 128 bit random number) - it should not be feasible.

Finally, horcruxing - has nothing to do with server side. Has nothing to do with hashing. Is a simple suffix appended to any given password stored in a password manager, in a INMHO misguided attempt at improved security.

Server sees full password on account creation and login. Seems to suggested to share "horcqrux" cross accounts.

An attacker compromising the passwords stored in the password manager, only gets ~half the password. Need to get the other half via brute force, through compromising another account sharing the same suffix/horcrux, via keyboard logger etc.

A physical compromise of a device with a password manager seem to likely open up for a lot of these attacks.

Note that bitwarden uses 2fa to authenticate a client - but AFAIK if you have a copy of the data/vault - the passphrase is sufficient to get the decryption key.

Horcruxing defends against some odd threats, and otherwise adds more complexity than security IMNHO.

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#158
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these concepts are significantly different - as different as salts and peppers at least. Peppering helps protect against database access revealing password. Horcrux protects against password manager access. Peppering is stored on the server, but outside the database. Horcruxes are stored in the user's head. You could do both, one, or neither. Client-side peppering would be having part of your password outside…

> Peppering helps protect against database access revealing password. Horcrux protects against password manager access. What is a password manager but a database of your passwords? Peppering is a token that is not in the database of passwords that needs to be applied for the password to be correct. Whether it's applied by an application, or a person doesn't seem relevant, as what is an application but a set of instru…

> Peppering is a token that is not in the database of passwords that needs to be applied for the password to be correct.

Well, typically a server only cares about verifying the user (still) knows a password.

A typical server (today) does not have a way to reconstruct the plain password, only a way to check if any given string matches.

A password manager, typically does have a way to supply the password.

Peppers and salts are typically manipulated by the server system, plain passwords are typically managed by the password manager.

In this case the password manager never sees the hocrux, and cannot leak it. A server will typically leak a pepper to anyone with access to ram (or access to a hw enclave, which is expected to be more difficult).

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#159
post #145

The best password manager would be a physical device which requires a tap to unlock a password. Trezor password manager got close, but it seems like they abandoned it and they never supported local (sd card) storage. Basically, It would be a yubikey style device, secured by a master password. You could have nice browser plugins for listing all your available passwords and single click logins, etc.. Everything that la…

I'm building exactly that. Trevor is a joke, security-wise. I literally laffed.

> Trevor is a joke, security-wise.

Any links you can share?

Re: Double Blind Passwords a.k.a. Horcruxing

#160
post #91
post #90

This doesn't address the key issue of how many "in head" horcruxes you want to have. Is it one and the same for all passwords? Then two broken passwords reveals it (if someone's clever maybe even 1, not sure here). If it's different for different passwords, you now need to memorize (or store elsewhere) a list of many, many such horcruxes. Not 7... but maybe a 100 or 200 to be practical for a heavy user of internet ap…

I have about 400 DPG passwords all stored in my head. https://github.com/62726164/dpg

deterministic password generator? You mean like https://pwdhash.github.io/website/ ? Might be worth spelling out the differences for those of us lacking expertise in computer security matters.
Post reply on HN