It's not nearly as convenient as LastPass, but likely more secure. It uses TwoFish with a 256 bit key length, which was one of the finalists for the AES standard.
The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
331–340 of 436 posts
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone who has any idea what they're talking about in this case would have used a hardware wallet.
> The losses are not significant. That together with others here claiming they have a LOT, makes me think they might have hot, cold, soft and hardware wallets.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#333Please stop commenting whether you are a LastPass user or not. Some of your profiles on HN have an email address and in general all your comments are public so can be mined, plus "rich techies" could be prime targets for more direct and elaborate phishing campaigns.
For all you know, they are bots or shills to encourage actual users to comment. Remember this? hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars ********* see! hunter2 doesnt look like stars to me ******* thats what I see oh, really? Absolutely you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2 haha, does that look funny to you? lol, yes. See, when YOU type hunter2, it shows to us as ******* thats neat, I didnt know IRC did…
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
The database is encrypted when at rest; i.e., no plaintext is stored on Dropbox. Assuming your master password is decent, you could plaster the database on a billboard and it would be safe. LastPass, on the other hand, encrypts some information (the actual passwords). The URLs and other sensitive information is stored in plaintext in the cloud. [Final edit. I swear.] As you note, as long as the entire blob is encrypt…
But that is the same claim that Bitwarden and 1Password make. Both insist that they don't ever see your master password, which means that your vault security depends entirely on it being good enough. And both encrypt everything. Assuming that I trust Bitwarden not to lie about their security model, what do I gain by piecing together multiple tools to accomplish the same thing?
In case of keepass and independent sync(doesn't have to be Dropbox), software that sees master password doesn't need access to the internet. Can be even airgapped if you are extra paranoid.
So to sum it up: keepass + sync is better, because there's no single party that is even able to screw up you to the point of leaking your passwords. "Impossible to fail" is better than "they are doing their best, pinkie promise".
Also - why pay recurring fee for yet another cloud storage, when I just need plain encryption software.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#335> I think the situation at @LastPass may be better than they are letting on. > > On Sunday the 18th, four of my wallets were completely safe. There were no losses. > > Their seeds were kept, encrypted, in my lastpass vault, behind a 16 character password using all character types.
IOW, the honesty and integrity of the user does not matter. What matters is some form of verification of the cause of a breach, because this single post presents no useful evidence for determining the cause of the breach, most especially ruling out over-the-shoulder attacks.
What has confounded me for a long time is this question: are there no breaches of security cameras? I can spend time in a Starbucks and always see someone enter a password into some device, I do not recall reading that a security camera system has been hacked, yet I would assign an incredibly high value to security cameras in places like coffee shops, airports, hotel lobbies, etc.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#336Please reaffirm my choice to pick you as our company password manager years ago before I research the ambiguity of centralized password management and make my own decision.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#337Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#338What if this tweet was provided as "evidence" of the opposite claim: > I think the situation at @LastPass may be better than they are letting on. > > On Sunday the 18th, four of my wallets were completely safe. There were no losses. > > Their seeds were kept, encrypted, in my lastpass vault, behind a 16 character password using all character types. IOW, the honesty and integrity of the user does not matter. What matt…
There are fewer ways to get the data than reasons why the data has not (yet) been used.
You can't prove there was no breach.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely feel the opposing law works. When I see a project with a massive disclaimer about "this crypto is not audited, I'm a noob never deploy this anywhere" I'm likely to see better crypto than most of the commercial products I work with, including ones with sales people that talk about unbreakable crypto.
> When I see a project with a massive disclaimer about "this crypto is not audited, I'm a noob never deploy this anywhere" I'm likely to see better crypto than most of the commercial products I work with, including ones with sales people that talk about unbreakable crypto. I'm working on an opensource project for Linux users that needs crypto. Needless to say, I'm not an expert in that domain. I was planning to ask e…
To give a couple of specific (but non-exhaustive) examples, generally framed in terms of password managers:
- A password manager should protect the identity of the sites the user has saved, the content of the username and password field, and any associated notes. (That's fairly straightforward, most people are likely to agree on this). But what about integrity? Should you use an authenticated cipher mode like GCM? What will you do if the authentication tag fails verification?
- The password should be encrypted such that if a password is re-used across websites, it is not discernable from the ciphertext that this is the case. (Fewer people will think about this, but some will... Using AES in ECB mode isn't enough to prevent this! Lastpass appear to have done this in the early days).
- The key used to encrypt each ciphertext should probably be unique, to reduce any potential impacts of weaknesses in ciphers or cipher modes. Each cipher should use a unique per-instance instantiation as well (i.e. IV, GCM tag, etc.) How do you store and derive these passwords though? That will take you into key derivation functions, and password-based ones, like scrypt/bcrypt/argon2. These can derive a crypto key from a user password. You can then use that key as input to a KDF (with a per-entry salt) to derive the actual AES key used for each entry.
- If you're designing a wire protocol, what properties do you seek? Replay resistance? How do you prevent session resumption type attacks? (don't design a new wire protocol, use something robust like modern TLS!)
98+% of the time, at least in my experience, people who mess up crypto don't understand what goal they are seeking to achieve by using the cryptography, and haven't threat modelled it. Usually this is because regular devs are being asked by "BigCorp" to add "AES 256 crypto" to meet a client tick-box requirement. I would say if you understand how people are likely to seek to break/compromise what you are building, you can then start to design a solution. Expect to read 10x more articles than you expect, and before you start writing any code though.
And don't focus too much on getting an expert to review the code only - you ideally want to get some input reviewing the concept, architecture, understanding of the threat model, and the security properties you want to deliver. I've blown huge holes in crypto systems before, as people did things "nearly" right, but didn't understand the wider application, so were exposing/leaking the key elsewhere etc.
Re: The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the hack of LastPass happened yesterday, sure, but it happened months ago. There are a variety of different attacks that could be executed in that time, and the sooner the attacks are executed, the better — because less time for credentials to be rotated. I find it implausible that the first hint of vault compromise comes 4 months after the hack and is against a low value cryptocurrency wallet. Especially consider…
I largely agree with you, however it may also be the case that the attackers have been working on cracking vaults quietly since the hack and the announcement made them go after everything they had cracked so far instead of continuing to work quietly. They might have decided the crackable vaults don’t rotate credentials within them often, but it becomes much more likely after the announcement.
The time might have been spent analyzing the source code for vulnerabilities in the way the vaults were being protected.