Live data from Hacker News

Stupid security things

troyhunt.com

71–80 of 161 posts

Re: Stupid security things

#71
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that funny or bad? If your grandmother is living and has a single dog, as 'security questions' go that would strike me as being pretty good.

If your grandmother is alive and has one dog and you use that dog's name as the answer you are not terribly secure because this information is easy to obtain. It's only virtue is that it is, supposedly, easier for you to remember.

I'd argue this is one of the more secure questions compared to other common questions like "Your mother's maiden name" or "The make of your first car".

Re: Stupid security things

#72

That "What is the name of your grandmother's dog?" security question made me lol @ work. This really makes me want to write a "Stupid security questions generator" website.

I don't know if it's a good practice or not, but i usually just pick a word to use for all security questions, that's totally unrelated to the question.

ex. I what town did you first meet your best friend? "potato".

Re: Stupid security things

#73
post #72

That "What is the name of your grandmother's dog?" security question made me lol @ work. This really makes me want to write a "Stupid security questions generator" website.

I don't know if it's a good practice or not, but i usually just pick a word to use for all security questions, that's totally unrelated to the question. ex. I what town did you first meet your best friend? "potato".

the problem then is when they ask for multiple security questions

"potato" "potato" "potato"

then they tell you that you cant use the same security answer for multiple questions

...... and thats when i nope out

Re: Stupid security things

#74
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (as seems to be standard) ask you to enter 3 characters in positions of their choosing, so they need plaintext to be able to do that. It's clearly not as secure as it could be, and it's annoying to work out too - I wish they'd just do normal 2FA. Those plastic keyfobs HSBC use are even worse.

I like the plastic keyfobs. They're much more secure than using your phone as 2FA. Basically the only thing keeping HSBC/1st direct secure.

How are they more secure than your phone? If by phone you mean SMS, then I agree. But as far as I understand, TOTP (ie Google Authenticator) is pretty secure. But I'm not a security expert.

Re: Stupid security things

#75
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that funny or bad? If your grandmother is living and has a single dog, as 'security questions' go that would strike me as being pretty good.

Because the number of people who have a grandmother with a dog that they know the name of is very small.

Right. Exactly one grandmother with exactly one living dog and you know its name. I literally can't think of anyone I know who could answer this.

Re: Stupid security things

#76
post #40

That "What is the name of your grandmother's dog?" security question made me lol @ work. This really makes me want to write a "Stupid security questions generator" website.

Why is that funny or bad? If your grandmother is living and has a single dog, as 'security questions' go that would strike me as being pretty good.

When you want to retrieve the password for an account you created 5 years ago, but you only remember creating it between 5 and 15 years ago and you have 2 dog loving grandma's each of whom have 2-3 old doggos all the time....well, good luck in remembering and identifying the correct name of the possible 10-15 dogs

Re: Stupid security things

#77

Huh, couple years ago Santander in the UK changed their web layout. No big deal, except that my password wouldn't work anymore - I rang them up, and they said "did you have any special characters in your password? If yes, then they have been removed because the new system does not support special characters. Please use the same password as before, but without special characters". 1) This is one of the largest banks i…

Chase doesn't except certain characters, including "&"

Re: Stupid security things

#78
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, that's interesting. I've never been to Sweden, but pretty much no shops in any country I've ever visited required a pin code for Visa or Amex credit cards. Is this really changing?

What do they require then? I've never in my entire life used my credit/debit card without typing in the PIN number(except for contactless payments, of course). I'm in the UK. I think they can be used with a signature too? Maybe? I've never heard of anyone actually signing a bill instead of using the pin, and besides, I don't even sign my cards.

Chip and signature is the norm in brick and mortar stores in the USA. Even then, many purchases will not require a signature unless the transaction is over a certain amount, typically $50. Many card issuers were too nervous to go full chip and pin in US markets for whatever reason.

Re: Stupid security things

#79

I remember when cookies was where every site kept their cached credentials in plaintext. It was so popular you didn't need a password manager, just a cookie and form manager. In case most of you didn't know/forgot: a large amount of the modern security practices on the web are due to browsers making it easy for sites to attack users, and making MITM trivial. The most common attack vector is literally the browser and…

https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/

It's a nice idea, but their implementation proposal is lame. They keep depending on a phone like a phone is secure or ubiquitous (of which it is neither) or on keyfobs or "gestures" (of which the former nobody will use, and the latter is just a less secure password).

They rely on public key auth, which is more complicated and less reliable than a simple TOTP token. Considering that web browsers already support public key authentication but nobody uses it because their design is a UX garbage fire, I don't think that scheme will work well.

Other things are problematic too, like scripts (rather than the web server) having control of the process; this is an unnecessary attack vector. They also depend on browser-specific technology which limits how this system can be extended to other clients. This spec was clearly written by a JS developer, for JS developers.

This should not be a "web standard". Service providers that need strong authentication for HTTP don't only use web browsers. It will be more useful to be able to support existing applications through the use of an HTTP extension, rather than updating every single web app in the world to support this scheme.

In fact, now that I think of it, you could tack TOTP onto existing HTTP authentication right now! Just allow "TOTP:" as a password entry. I don't know why I didn't think of that before.

Re: Stupid security things

#80
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that funny or bad? If your grandmother is living and has a single dog, as 'security questions' go that would strike me as being pretty good.

When you want to retrieve the password for an account you created 5 years ago, but you only remember creating it between 5 and 15 years ago and you have 2 dog loving grandma's each of whom have 2-3 old doggos all the time....well, good luck in remembering and identifying the correct name of the possible 10-15 dogs

This is a case where you think of an _idealized_ grandma, and her perfectly preserved dog, `Mr. Mycroft Applebottom III`, who has been sitting on her mantlepiece since you were in gradeschool. [0]

The site doesn't have to know you're making it up.

0: Obviously, it'd be better if your idealized grandma spoke with your password generator beforehand, and therefore named her dog something less guessable, like `ff627f056c51b694e2e5d0bdc168c647`.

Post reply on HN