[HN Gopher] Pwned passwords, open source in the .NET foundation ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Pwned passwords, open source in the .NET foundation and working
       with the FBI
        
       Author : jffry
       Score  : 307 points
       Date   : 2021-05-28 23:35 UTC (23 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.troyhunt.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.troyhunt.com)
        
       | trhway wrote:
       | is it legal to collect the hacked accounts/emails/etc. lists from
       | the places like hacking forums/etc.? Wouldn't it be a stolen
       | property what can make FBI go after you?
       | 
       | Coincidentally, just few days ago a Russian owner of a platform
       | for such exchanges got his sentence:
       | 
       | https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/russian-hacker-sentence...
       | 
       | "DEER.IO sold not only stolen accounts, like the gamer accounts
       | identified in the plea agreement, but also Americans' personal
       | information, to include names, current addresses, telephone
       | numbers and at times Social Security numbers. On March 4, 2020,
       | the FBI purchased 1,100 gamer accounts, and on March 5, 2020, the
       | FBI purchased the personal information for over 3,600 Americans.
       | On March 7, 2020, Firsov was arrested by the FBI in New York City
       | when he flew into JFK Airport from Moscow."
        
         | tsujamin wrote:
         | I hazard it depends on the jurisdiction - one thing I remember
         | from my vague parsing of Australia's cyber crime laws (IANAL
         | etc) is that possession of these lists/hacking tools was only
         | criminal where there was an intent to use them for another
         | criminal act (Crimes Act 478.3, probably superseded [1])
         | 
         | [1]: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A00937
        
         | scott00 wrote:
         | Not a lawyer, but my guess would be that whether it is legal or
         | not depends on what (if anything) you intend to do with the
         | information. This is based mainly on perusal of this page
         | summarizing a bunch of state identity theft statutes:
         | https://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerc...
         | 
         | Of the ones with details listed it seems most of them require
         | intent to defraud or something similar in addition to
         | possession of personal information. I think paying for the info
         | could also be problematic, there are a few trafficking laws in
         | that list.
         | 
         | In a similar vein, possession of the info with the intent to
         | use it to hack into something would probably run afoul of the
         | CFAA or other anti-hacking laws.
         | 
         | If you collect that info with the intent to submit it to
         | haveibeenpwned I think you would probably be fine.
         | 
         | If you collect that info just for fun, but don't do anything
         | with it, I suspect that's legal, but probably not well-advised,
         | as I suspect cops/prosecutors/jurors would have trouble
         | believing someone did that for fun, and would interpret it as
         | evidence that you were up to something nefarious.
         | 
         | I don't think the stolen property angle is an issue. Digital
         | information can't really be stolen: usually the problem is
         | you've committed a copyright violation. In the US at least I
         | doubt user names and passwords would qualify for copyright
         | protection. (Generally, collections of facts do not qualify.)
        
           | jedimastert wrote:
           | > Digital information can't really be stolen
           | 
           | That's not completely true. Generally, most ways you can
           | "steal" data are illegal in their own right. Examples include
           | computer fraud and wire fraud.
           | 
           | The Computer Fraid and Abuse act does actually detail
           | punishment for the trafficking of passwords but said
           | trafficking must be done knowingly and with an intent to
           | defraud, so this specific usage would probably be fine
        
         | jffry wrote:
         | Troy Hunt has blogged a few times about the legitimacy of his
         | service, and it's clearly been a carefully walked path to where
         | it is today.
         | 
         | I think ultimately it comes down to the fact that he's not
         | redistributing the lists of emails, and he doesn't retain pairs
         | of (email + password hash). He designed the site to provide two
         | useful queries ("what breaches included my email" and "has this
         | password been seen in any breaches you processed"), which
         | strike a responsible balance between disclosure and privacy.
         | 
         | Moreover, he has written about his intentions and acted with a
         | fair deal of transparency, which is a strong contrast to some
         | of the shady behavior you'll see from people dancing in the
         | gray areas of the law.
         | 
         | That was probably a stepping stone to partnering with other
         | organizations, which has snowballed into having the cooperation
         | of the FBI, as well as the endorsement of multiple countries'
         | governments.
        
         | agogdog wrote:
         | I imagine the FBI strongly considers scale and intent. Troy
         | Hunt is very obviously not reselling accounts, for example.
         | 
         | Though keep in mind that the FBI can go after whoever they
         | want, sometimes without reason at all.
        
       | mindwok wrote:
       | HIBP has really grown from kind of a cool toy to a serious public
       | good. Kudos to Troy for his great stewardship over the years, you
       | can tell he is passionate about this and is very careful about
       | making sure this dataset is used for everyone's benefit. I'm glad
       | he decided to head this direction after the discussions of
       | acquisition a while back.
        
         | bostonsre wrote:
         | Yea, I feel like there should be some kind of internet nobel
         | prize and that he should be one of the few to win it. He's
         | definitely a badass.
        
           | Angostura wrote:
           | Tim Berners-Lee should be one of the first in the queue.
        
             | mtmail wrote:
             | Tim Berners-Lee is in the World Wide Web Hall of Fame,
             | Internet Hall of Fame, Touring Prize among others https://e
             | n.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honours_rec...
        
           | andrewgjohnson wrote:
           | The Swartz Prize? I like that namesake better than some
           | others
           | 
           | --
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel#Criticism
           | 
           | "Criticism of Nobel focuses on his leading role in weapons
           | manufacturing and sales, and some question his motives in
           | creating his prizes, suggesting they are intended to improve
           | his reputation."
        
             | Jiocus wrote:
             | Here in Scandinavia, the usual narrative about Alfred Nobel
             | is that he wanted to offset the damage his inventions have
             | contributed to the world. To acknowledge that, he probably
             | felt that it was intertwined with his reputation and his
             | own concsience.
        
             | bostonsre wrote:
             | Yea, that name definitely gets my vote.
        
             | OscarCunningham wrote:
             | > some question his motives in creating his prizes,
             | suggesting they are intended to improve his reputation.
             | 
             | That seems backwards to me. Part of the purpose of
             | reputation is to incent people to do good things.
        
         | xwolfi wrote:
         | Yeah love the guy, saved me a few times !
        
       | jongalloway2 wrote:
       | Brief mention in the post, but FYI to the thread - .NET
       | Foundation is an independant non-profit (501c6) foundation that
       | supports the .NET open source community. It's run by a community
       | elected board and funded by member donations and a diverse group
       | of corporate sponsors. This is a great example of the kind of
       | work they do to support the community.
       | 
       | Disclaimer: I was on staff at .NET Foundation 2016-2019.
        
       | oaiey wrote:
       | I can understand Troy's rationale, but I would prefer someone
       | else than the .NET Foundation. The foundation should focus on
       | .NET and not be a kitchen sink of everything written in .NET.
        
         | jongalloway2 wrote:
         | I think this is a good partnership. One of the goals of open
         | source software foundations is to eliminate risks due to
         | dependency on a small developer team. In this case, HIBP is a
         | fantastic resource being maintained, and paid for, by one
         | developer. That's not good for the maintainer, it's not good
         | for the community, and it's risky to the community. If the sole
         | developer wins a spot on the next flight to Mars or time
         | travels to A.D. 802,701, the code becomes unmaintained and the
         | site hosting payment expires. Software foundations governed by
         | rotating teams and aren't dependant on a single individual.
         | This is an example of something that's relatively low
         | investment for an established software foundation - some legal
         | fees and discounted cloud hosting from a sponsor - and benefits
         | the whole community.
        
           | oaiey wrote:
           | Hi Jon, ... it is definitely a good thing for the project to
           | be guarded by more than Troy's private money and legal
           | situation. I do not disagree on these benefits. It is more
           | about the focus of the foundation.
           | 
           | PS: thanks for years of "Jon loves Community"
        
           | gostsamo wrote:
           | Issue is that .net is a language oriented foundation, not a
           | cyber security one. Sending the project there looks like an
           | ad for a Microsoft initiative and not something done with the
           | best interest of HIBP in mind. Just an example, there is
           | foundation literally called Open Source Security Foundation.1
           | If I write a python security tool and it is useful for the
           | community, I'd think first of transferring it to them, not to
           | the Python foundation.
           | 
           | 1. https://openssf.org/
        
             | oaiey wrote:
             | That is exactly my train of thought sans the Microsoft
             | worries :).
        
             | dralley wrote:
             | Or even the Linux Foundation
        
       | stuaxo wrote:
       | Makes me wonder if they will try nefarious things like uploading
       | the hash of passwords they don't have to try and get people to
       | change them.
        
         | harikb wrote:
         | Unless the goal is to make Microsoft rich with storing all
         | 2^256, anything they actually can guess would be worth changing
        
       | ping_pong wrote:
       | I love how the term "pwn" came from Counterstrike culture back
       | when I was playing it at the turn of the century, and it's still
       | in use today.
        
         | dimitrios1 wrote:
         | lol, pwn did not come from counterstrike. It originated from
         | "leetspeak", which were creative misspellings that script
         | kiddies and anarchist hackers on bbs boards (or IRC chans)
         | would create to bypass text filters or go undetected by mods or
         | operators. It later became part of internet culture adopted to
         | mock n00bs.
        
           | ping_pong wrote:
           | Nope. It 100% came from Counter-strike. There was a typo in
           | one of the messages and that's how it got famous.
        
             | ahofmann wrote:
             | Ah, the youngsters... I started playing Counter-Strike at
             | beta 6. You could be pwned years before that.
        
             | dimitrios1 wrote:
             | Funny, WoW nerds have this exactly same origin myth about
             | the term, and that came out 4 years after CS 1.0.
        
             | confinc wrote:
             | Confidently incorrect. Good work, ol' chap.
        
               | ping_pong wrote:
               | Likewise, my good friend.
        
               | raptorfactor wrote:
               | I'm not the person you're arguing with originally, but
               | you may want to do some research before being quite so
               | pompous.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet#Owned_and_pwned
               | 
               | >The term was created accidentally by the misspelling of
               | "own" in video game design due to the keyboard proximity
               | of the "O" and "P" keys. It implies domination or
               | humiliation of a rival,[21]
               | 
               | https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/p
               | wne...').
               | 
               | >There are various theories about the etymology of pwned.
               | >One of the more popular accounts is that it originated
               | in the online computer game World of Warcraft, where a
               | map designer misspelt owned (where own was intended to be
               | used in the sense of 'conquer' or 'dominate').
               | 
               | What was that about being "confidently incorrect" again?
        
               | manigandham wrote:
               | The comment you replied to is the first and only one by
               | that account, and not the original user either.
               | 
               | The term "pwn(ed)" was popular before any of these games
               | existed. Here's a much more thorough history lesson,
               | linked from HIBP itself:
               | https://www.inverse.com/gaming/pwned-meaning-definition-
               | orig...
               | 
               |  _" At this point, pwn allegedly meant to demote or
               | dethrone someone, but the slang was quickly picked up by
               | early computer-users that exchanged messages on FidoNet,
               | a system created in the 1980s for exchanging emails or
               | text on digital bulletin boards. This is where pwn slowly
               | transformed into the insult we know today."_
        
               | scbrg wrote:
               | >One of the more popular accounts is that it originated
               | in the online computer game World of Warcraft, where a
               | map designer misspelt owned (where own was intended to be
               | used in the sense of 'conquer' or 'dominate').
               | 
               | I'd say the fact that the author of the text obviously
               | doesn't know the difference between _World of Warcraft_
               | (an MMO) and the _Warcraft_ series (a set of RTS games)
               | casts some doubt on this  "popular account". Especially
               | since the games are some ten years apart.
        
             | manigandham wrote:
             | This is not true. You're declaring objective history from
             | what seems to be your personal anecdotes (and you say
             | you're guessing in another comment).
             | 
             | HIBP links to this article which shows the history of the
             | term before any of these games:
             | https://www.inverse.com/gaming/pwned-meaning-definition-
             | orig...
        
               | mkishi wrote:
               | That's an enjoyable article, but geez is it light on
               | details.
               | 
               | The one tangible instance mentioned is the Spice Girls
               | hack -- but follow the link to discover they didn't even
               | use pwn, but 0wned!
               | 
               | I tried searching a few pre-00s bbs/usenet archives but
               | could only find a couple of gaming-related instances.
               | [1][2]
               | 
               | It'd be pretty interesting to see some hacking groups
               | usage in the 80-90s. Maybe someone with better access to
               | archives could see some trends?
               | 
               | [1] https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.everquest/c/GN9
               | tm8Esrw...
               | 
               | [2] https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.computer.ultima
               | .online...
        
         | walrus01 wrote:
         | The origin of pwn in gaming context is in quake multiplayer
         | which predates CS by some years. I also recall seeing people on
         | irc using it before that in the same context as cracking a
         | system.
        
           | ping_pong wrote:
           | Back in the day, I played Counter-strike, Quake, Warcraft,
           | Doom (I played PvP against people in my dorm using modem
           | using IPX protocol pre-Internet). The first place I saw it
           | was definitely Counter-strike. My guess is that it originated
           | in CS and then leaked out from there.
        
             | atatatat wrote:
             | > The first place I saw it was definitely Counter-strike
             | 
             | Nobody ever made that hilarious typo in a shooter before
             | CS, lol
             | 
             | You are the arbiter of truth.
        
             | Nadya wrote:
             | 1989: http://phrack.org/issues/24/11.html
             | 
             | Unless Y2K comes before 1989 it most certainly did not come
             | from Counter-strike. Pwning something had existed
             | throughout the 1990's hacker culture and likely was in use
             | in the 80's too. There are some of us old enough to
             | remember it being used. It probably stemmed from QWERTY
             | keyboards and o/p being close to one another. "Pwned" is an
             | easy typo from "Owned" and "owned by [some hacker/hacker
             | group]" was always common way to deface hacked websites. It
             | easily predates Counter-strike's release date by at least a
             | decade so it could not have originated from CS.
        
               | ping_pong wrote:
               | Do a bit better research. It stands for Phrack World News
               | in this context. I also read Phrack back in the day as
               | well.
               | 
               | How about trying to search through all the Phrack
               | articles to find the use of the word "pwn" that doesn't
               | refer to Phrack World News? Spoiler alert: you won't find
               | any usage of "pwn" or "pwned" until well past 2000. If it
               | was so much part of hacker culture you would have seen a
               | reference in the earlier articles, but you don't.
        
               | hug wrote:
               | "Phrack World News" and it's acronym are a different
               | usage to the word synonymous with "own" -- which is not
               | saying it wasn't in use before counter-strike, but the
               | link isn't good evidence for it.
        
               | Nadya wrote:
               | I overlooked the acronym and that is a very fair point.
        
             | fogihujy wrote:
             | I saw pwn being used as a synonym for own in the mid-90's
             | so it definitely predates Counter Strike.
             | 
             | That being said, it probably originated as a typo and that
             | could have happened on multiple occasions.
        
               | quesera wrote:
               | You are definitely correct.
               | 
               | Hack/phreak BBS culture and leetspeak went mainstream
               | though IRC and video game chat.
               | 
               | Everything old is new again, nothing new under the sun,
               | etc.
               | 
               | I'm waiting for !!1!!!1!11 to make a resurgence.
        
       | 1MachineElf wrote:
       | This makes me wonder if the FBI is taking stolen credentials off
       | these sites in order to use them against suspects under
       | investigation. Do they have my passwords? Might they have yours?
        
         | NotEvil wrote:
         | It's written in the blog that fbi is only providing breach
         | datasets not getting them. Through every dataset in HIBP is
         | public already
        
           | floatboth wrote:
           | IIRC every dataset _in pwned passwords_ is public, not in all
           | of HIBP
        
         | adamhearn wrote:
         | I would be willing to bet most intelligent FBI agents have
         | their own stash of data breaches regardless of what agency
         | policy is. Data breaches are truly invaluable in online
         | investigations.
        
           | dogma1138 wrote:
           | FBI agents don't break into computers unless they are part of
           | the forensic team.
           | 
           | The FBI forensic team / lab definitely has plenty of
           | dictionaries.
        
         | devwastaken wrote:
         | Haveibeenpwned gets their lists in the same manner anyone else
         | can. FBI already has those lists, probably faster than
         | haveibeenpwned does.
        
       | pythonist wrote:
       | It is a big contribution to opensource it. The work behind the
       | data is huge and extremely significant. Thanks Troy!
       | 
       | The service implementation that I did with a bit different
       | technical requirement is here
       | https://github.com/janos/compromised as an alternative. It is
       | actively used behind the NewReleases.io service.
       | 
       | It focuses on extremely low memory usage and supporting very high
       | request rates on a commodity hardware, cheap vps or cloud
       | instances.
        
       | throwaway00x00 wrote:
       | Am I the only one a bit surprised that the feed from the FBI will
       | be NTLM and SHA1 hashes? (especially the NTLM)
       | 
       | Would it make more sense to break the NTLM hashes and then to
       | rehash with something more secure (even a better SHA, like
       | SHA256)
       | 
       | This is not quite as feasible for SHA1 (but it actually might be,
       | even in bulk -- this was 9 years ago[0]!) as for NTLM, but I
       | remember cracking NTLM hashes in bulk back in the late 90's on .3
       | Ghz servers, and I'm sure it would take a heartbeat to do it
       | today.
       | 
       | 0. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/oh-
       | gr...
        
         | bawolff wrote:
         | I suspect its not that the fbi has ntlm/sha1 hashes as their
         | base data set, but that they dont want to give out the actual
         | passwords and settled on these two hashes instead. I think HIBP
         | was already giving out their dataset in this format.
         | 
         | Fwiw, sha1, 256 or even md5 have similar levels of security
         | when it comes to password hashing. The security properties you
         | want for password hashing are very different than normal
         | hashing.
        
         | KMag wrote:
         | In what sense do you consider SHA-256 superior to SHA-1?
         | 
         | If you're looking for preimage resistance, unless your
         | passwords contain more than 128 bits of entropy, I suspect
         | bruit forcing your password is still faster than a preimage
         | attack on SHA-1, and will probably remain so for at least a
         | decade. Collision attacks aren't useful for passwords (attacker
         | chooses two passwords such that they have the same hash... I
         | can't imagine a threat model under which this is useful to the
         | attacker if that hash doesn't match any target's password hash.
         | Maybe there is such a threat model, but it has to be a very
         | outside-the-box attack.)
         | 
         | If you're worried about effort needed to bruit-force the
         | password, use Argon2 or another memory-hard password hash/KDF.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | ignoramous wrote:
       | Periodic reminder that _fast_ cryptographic hash functions like
       | SHA-x and MD5, even with a non-secret _salt_ ( _pepper_?), are
       | not designed to resist brute-force attacks on data as low-entropy
       | as passwords.
       | 
       | Use scrypt [0], bcrypt [1], or argon2 [2], which are key
       | derivation functions (KDF) built on top of pseudo-random
       | functions (PRF) and designed to be _slow_.
       | 
       | In one interesting example, the Keybase founders deviced an
       | experimental scheme to generate Bitcoin wallet addresses from a
       | passphrase and a salt using KDFs [3], the advantage here being
       | that the wallet then is _fully_ non-custodial (note, there are
       | better ways to implement non-custodial wallets [4]).
       | 
       | [0] https://blog.filippo.io/scrypt-all-the-things/
       | 
       | [1] https://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/
       | 
       | [2] https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/
       | 
       | [3] https://keybase.io/warp/
       | 
       | [4] https://github.com/novifinancial/opaque-ke
        
         | ATsch wrote:
         | AFAIR the reason this database is stored as SHA-1 hashes is
         | because that's what a large amount of the original data dumps
         | contained. Moving to a harder hash would have required cracking
         | all of them first and wouldn't do much more to ensure the
         | database can't be directly used as a password list for attacks.
        
           | ignoramous wrote:
           | I think you misunderstood me. I meant that developers must
           | use KDFs and not cryptographic hash functions to store user
           | passwords (at least until WebAuthn takes center stage), so
           | that in the event they are pwned and have their db stolen,
           | the brute-force attacks wouldn't be as effective.
        
       | limeblack wrote:
       | Honest question, an email I infrequently use in own the list
       | https://haveibeenpwned.com/
       | 
       | Is it safe if I simply add 2 factor authentication(edit: change
       | password of course also) or do I need to add something else?
        
         | smichel17 wrote:
         | The only thing I'd add to the other comment (by babelfish) is:
         | I'm not sure from your description whether your email account
         | itself was compromised or merely an account on some site that
         | is connected to your email (for example, a hacker news account
         | which you used that email address to sign up with).
         | 
         | If the email account itself was compromised, then you should
         | also check any account that you signed up for using that email
         | address, to make sure that you still have access (because if
         | someone had access to your email, they could have used it to
         | reset the password on those other sites).
        
         | ocdtrekkie wrote:
         | 2FA is more than adequate on its own in a lot of cases:
         | Attackers tend to go for low lying fruit.
         | 
         | Also, how worried you need to be depends on what you use the
         | account for... People go off the deep end about securing every
         | single account like it's Fort Knox, but you need to consider
         | what is at risk if a given account is compromised, and what
         | damage could be done with it.
        
         | prawn wrote:
         | Obviously look out for targeted phishing from people who know
         | that you have a registration with a particular site. But if
         | you're on HN, that might go without saying.
        
         | babelfish wrote:
         | Change your password, change the password of any other site
         | where you use a variation of that password, and enable 2FA on
         | all your accounts. Use a password manager and change your
         | passwords to longer randomly-generated ones over time (most
         | password managers make this easy).
        
           | formerly_proven wrote:
           | 2FA is such a hassle that IMHO it's only worth it for high-
           | stake accounts. 20+ characters long random passwords are
           | totally adequate security for most accounts and you don't get
           | constantly harassed by 2FA prompts.
        
             | tialaramex wrote:
             | WebAuthn prompts aren't a big hassle. On this desktop I
             | reach over and touch the Security Key, on my phone I tap
             | the fingerprint sensor. Because the phone is entitled to
             | set UV since it knows that's _my_ fingerprint not somebody
             | else picking up the phone, they could _replace_ the
             | password step which is more annoying.
        
               | formerly_proven wrote:
               | WebAuthn is good, easy to use, quick to complete, and
               | more secure than "enter the number we send you", so I
               | like it. Unfortunately most services (that I use, anyway)
               | are stuck in the "let's make you wait 1-2 minutes for a
               | SMS" or "use our/your authenticator app". I find this
               | especially annoying in conjunction with services that
               | seem to use "risk-based authentication", because using an
               | adblocker and anti-fingeprinting = extreme maximum risk
               | for those, i.e. let's force 2FA auth for every action
               | even after five minutes (sometimes, seconds!).
               | 
               | And as far as RBA goes, if they don't go full-2FA,
               | they'll often somehow go for password instead of second
               | factor to verify. I tend to keep my password manager
               | locked when not in active use, so that's more hassle for
               | me on services that DO use WebAuthn (Github, Google) than
               | if they'd just use WebAuthn for the "high risk action"
               | verification.
        
           | willis936 wrote:
           | I did this on all of my accounts over the course of a month.
           | Finally having an inventory of my accounts made it that I
           | could change the email on all accounts over a weekend.
           | 
           | I'm shell shocked and now have a chemical dependency on
           | locking things down. All of my machines now use ssh
           | keys+passphrase and I no longer put any unencrypted traffic
           | over LAN. Obviously there is a source of stress in my life.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-05-29 23:02 UTC)