Live data from Hacker News

6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

translate.google.com

331–340 of 547 posts

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember salts don't need to be secret to do their job. The goal is to change the algorithm slightly (by adding additional input) for each user. That means you can't mass-precompute (rainbow tables), and just look up what matches, you have to break each user individually. Your reasoning about how salts work is correct. There's also something called a pepper which is another additional bit of input data, that is only…

Please refer to my comment above. You can precompute a rainbow table if you know the username (trivial) and the method of hashing[1]. Whilst usernames as salts would increase security over no salt, it results in a potential exploit / vulnerability that would not exist if the salt was truly random. Hence, suggesting the use of usernames as salts is not wise. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle

I read cschneid's comment twice, and nowhere to I see where he or she specifically recommends using the username as a password; he or she simply recapitulates the logic behind using a unique salt value for each stored hash, and describes using an additional non-unique value which is not stored with the passwords ("pepper"), which is a new and interesting idea, at least to me.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#332
post #65

They just tweeted this: https://twitter.com/LinkedIn/status/210356987576324096 - "Our team is currently looking into reports of stolen passwords. Stay tuned for more."

And a follow-up: "Our team continues to investigate, but at this time, we're still unable to confirm that any security breach has occurred. Stay tuned here." https://twitter.com/LinkedIn/status/210390233076875264

If people are finding their unique password's hashes in the database, that's pretty damning evidence that a security breach has occurred.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#333

Some observations on this file: 0. This is a file of SHA1 hashes of short strings (i.e. passwords). 1. There are 3,521,180 hashes that begin with 00000. I believe that these represent hashes that the hackers have already broken and they have marked them with 00000 to indicate that fact. Evidence for this is that the SHA1 hash of 'password' does not appear in the list, but the same hash with the first five characters…

> Evidence against that thesis is that password of one person that I've asked is not in the list.

Mine isn't in it.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#334
I can confirm that my password was in there. I have changed it. My password was "98mnja6z" which hashes to 6475590bc1407aa98c8b022230292cce3d8528b3. I used this for no other sites, so I'm not concerned about it leaking.

It is inexcusable that LinkedIn hasn't alerted their users yet.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#338
post #295
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand on that, to store passwords don't just use salt+sha1, or try to do your own nested sha1, just use bcrypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcrypt

Could you explain what you mean with "nested sha1" - hashing it twice? How is this safer than sha1 + a good salt?

stef25, this is known as key stretching, as others have already explained elsewhere in this thread. Essentially the idea is to make computing the final hash of the password slower by iterating the hash function many times.

This additional slowdown is unlikely to be noticed by a user during an interactive login (hashing the password may take 1ms instead of 1us -- an imperceptible difference to a human) but it dramatically slows down the speed at which an attack can compute hashes to try and recover the password for a leaked hash. It also increases the amount of storage space required for (a naive implementation of) a rainbow table since the attacker would need to store the output for 1, 2, ..., n iterations of the hash function.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#339

"We were curious what would happen to our share price if our company did something incredibly stupid" The above comment might seem incredibly harsh, but really, there's no good excuse for a site this prominent to not have a salted, secure password hashing system. Even if they started with an unsalted password system, users can be migrated to the newer more secure system on next login. The only way I could regain resp…

>> Even if they started with an unsalted password system, users can be migrated to the newer more secure system on next login.

In thinking about this, I wonder if in that scenario you'd even have to wait until next login. You could just use the weak hash as the input to your salted hash function and keep a flag of whether or not you need to 'pre-hash' the password before using your v2.0 salted hash. As users log in you could replace slowly replace the double hashed entries with single salted hash versions and flip the flag.

Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked

#340
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fwiw, this could also be an elaborate hoax, given this facts. E.g. a list of simple password + combinations of the above simple password+"linkedin" variations.

My complex unique password is also on this list (full hash no 5 0's). So nope, not a hoax. Unbelievable/insulting they didn't even bother to salt.

Yeah, even I, a newbie Rails programmer, going through the Agile Rails book learned how to salt. It isn't rocket science.
Post reply on HN