Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:... using the name and e-mail address of other (Score 1) 319

My gmail address gets used as a throwaway rather a lot, and you'd be surprised at the number of sites that don't bother at all.

This message was sent to you ($foo@gmail.com) because you are a valued NBA fan registered with us and we wanted to wish you a happy birthday!

Hi meleonaz,

Registered email successfully updated
Your email address for the account meleonaz has been successfully updated to $foo@gmail.com

Hi @notme345,
We got a request to reset your Instagram password.

Thanks so much for joining Pandora! We're very happy to have you on board, and we look forward to providing you with endless hours of great music listening and discovery.

Many more sites will still create the account and let you use it without me validating the email, and many more provide no means of saying this *isn't* their email.

Comment Re:Your link explains the problem (Score 2) 111

Because a lot of security boils down to "I'm thinking of a number between 0 and $something, I bet an attacker can't guess it at a rate better than blind chance".

e.g. a 128 bit encryption key is a number between 0 and 340282366920938463463374607431768211455. With a secure random number generator, an attacker will have to on average test half of those possible keys before he finds the correct one, because he can't know anything that will reduce the space he has to search.

If your random number generator is broken - for an extreme example, say you only seed it with a 16-bit process ID - suddenly the random values you generate are trivially guessable, because there's only 65535 possible streams of randomness to check instead of $impossibly_huge_number. What should have taken longer than the age of the universe to crack now takes mere seconds.

Comment Er, what? (Score 1) 371

Users who upgrade to 10 will have their default browser automatically changed to the new Edge browse

I upgraded and it gave me a clear screen showing the new defaults, and an option to keep my existing ones, which I chose.

After booting, MPC-HC was still my default video player, foobar2000 was still my default music player, and Opera was still my default browser.

Submission + - HardenedBSD Completes Strong ASLR Implementation->

HardenedBSD writes: A relatively new fork of FreeBSD, HardenedBSD, completed their Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) feature. Without ASLR, applications are loaded into memory in a deterministic manner. An attacker who knows where a vulnerability lies in memory can reliably exploit that vulnerability to manipulate the application to doing the attacker's bidding. ASLR removes the determinism, making it so that an attacker knows that a vulnerability exists, but doesn't know where that vulnerability lies in memory. HardenedBSD's particular implementation of ASLR is the strongest form ever implemented in any of the BSDs.

With HardenedBSD having completed their ASLR implementation, the next step is to update documentation and submit update the patches they have already submitted upstream to FreeBSD. ASLR is the first step in a long list of exploit mitigation technologies HardenedBSD plans to implement. HardenedBSD has also implemented other exploit mitigation, security, and general hardening features, providing great security for FreeBSD.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:File versioning and backup flags (Score 1) 484

DragonFlyBSD's HAMMERFS does much of this - you can examine the version history of files and directories using hammer history and undo commands, and reference versions directly by appending @@ to filenames.

You can control how long history is preserved for and in what level of detail, as well as efficiently replicate it all across the network to remote filesystems (which can have their own, different rules). All this in addition to the more traditional named snapshots approach you're limited to with, e.g. ZFS.


Comment "Best"? (Score 1) 558

Guess that has to be my main server, even though it's a few generations older than my desktop, it has more cores, more IO, more memory and more storage. It runs FreeBSD.

Case: SuperChassis 745TQ-R800B (pic)

Motherboard: Supermicro X8DTN+

CPUs: 2 x 6-core Xeon L5639 @ 2.13GHz

RAM: 144GB - 9 x 16GB DDR3-1333 ECC Reg

Primary Storage: 2 x SanDisk Extreme Pro 960GB, ZFS mirror.

Mass Storage: 6 x 5TB Toshiba MD04ACA5, ZFS 3 x mirror.

Disk controller: IBM M1015, seems one of the most favoured HBA's these days.

Keyboard: NTC KB-6153EA with clicky White Alps.

I play with search engines and stuff, the memory comes in handy and I got it for a great price.

Desktop is a 32GB ECC quad core Haswell Xeon mumble mumble running Windows 8.1, with a pair of 30" 1600p monitors and a 20" 1600x1200. Nice having space to put stuff. Also nice having memory that doesn't silently corrupt itself every few months, you crazy kids and your non-parity.

Comment Re:Didn't say it's stupider than stupid. (Score 1) 149

It's not being used as a key. Key stretching would be pointless. You stretch to get a longer key if your goal is to derive a strong key

You want a strong key! Key stretching isn't just about making a physically longer key, it's about making a stronger one, such as by iterating your hash function a million times.

KDFs are for key derivation. That's why they're called key derivation functions. How is that hard to understand.

This is not in question. What is in question is why it's not exactly what you'd want out of a password hashing function - what difference does it make whether you're going to pass it to AES or to a comparison function?

Comment Re:Didn't say it's stupider than stupid. (Score 1) 149

A better choice is a properly vetted hash that's designed as a hash, such as SHA256

... which you then need to, at a minimum, apply salting and key stretching to. Good work, you just rewrote most of PBKDF2, just without the peer review, sane defaults, and for most people, probably in a language where the function call overhead exceeds the cost of the hashing.

Using a KDF as a hash is like using a butter knife as a screwdriver - it gets the job done, and professionals normally use the tool designed for the job rather than substituting.

Hashes are not designed for password storage, that's the entire reason we're having this conversation in the first place. People use KDF's for password storage because that's what they're made for. Anyone who uses a plain old hash has to make a KDF out of it. How are they different?

Comment Re:no, no, and no (Score 1) 149

Yes, I used "computationally complex" to mean "takes a lot of steps to complete". You and your "words mean stuff", stop evading the point.

Why is a KDF like PBKDF2, bcrypt or scrypt, a poorer option for password storage than rolling your own? Please use words which mean stuff.

Comment Re:no, no, and no (Score 1) 149

You want the hash algorithm to be SLOW, not "well optimized" ... You don't want it to be computationally complex.

How do you make an algorithm that's slow without being computationally complex? Writing it all in PHP doesn't count.

The algorithm has to be slow because it's a lot of work. Your implementation has to be fast to maximise the security benefit of using it in the first place.

You don't care about turning it into an unpredictable number.

What else do I want a hash function to return?

In fact you sometimes enforce O(1) time, you don't want a longer or different password to take longer to hash, because that facilitates timing attacks.

Pad your inputs and use constant time comparison functions, kids.

Comment Re:those are key derivation, not for passwords, co (Score 1) 149

Er, not really? You want a well-optimized function to turn a password into a very big unpredictable number in a way that's computationally complex, and that's precisely what KDFs are made to do. The entire crux of your argument against such use seems to boil down to "but they sometimes let you specify how big a number you want", as if this added complexity and risk somehow massively outweighed that created by rolling your own slow crappy little alternative.

Comment Re:Meaningless? (Score 1) 173

I find it odd that the WD drives, at the 5400rpm speed, were able to write data faster than the 7200rpm Seagate drives.

Maybe the Seagates are more sensitive to vibration, either from making more of it when you shove 45 into a cheap metal box, or by being less tolerant to it because they're pushed harder.

Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.