[HN Gopher] Notice of Recent Security Incident [updated]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Notice of Recent Security Incident [updated]
        
       Author : mikece
       Score  : 191 points
       Date   : 2022-12-22 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (blog.lastpass.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (blog.lastpass.com)
        
       | SoftTalker wrote:
       | I use a PGP encyrpted files on my local computer.
       | 
       | https://www.passwordstore.org/ actually.
       | 
       | I don't trust any cloud-hosted password manager.
        
         | drexlspivey wrote:
         | What if you want to log in from your phone?
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | I don't do that.
           | 
           | I have a gmail account tied to my phone (Android) and I've
           | logged into that once and it just stays logged in. I don't
           | use that account for anything else.
           | 
           | I don't really do anything else on my phone that requires a
           | login.
        
             | jozvolskyef wrote:
             | That's the exact setup I use on my main phone. There's also
             | https://github.com/android-password-store/Android-
             | Password-S..., which I use on throwaway phones.
        
             | dimgl wrote:
             | > I don't do that.
             | 
             | So your solution is unreasonable for 95% of consumers.
             | Nice.
        
               | _Algernon_ wrote:
               | Considering they answered a question, and weren't trying
               | to provide a solution to 100% of consumers I don't see
               | how its a problem warranting your response.
        
               | dspillett wrote:
               | But likely 100% of the 1 user they were trying to
               | support.
               | 
               | And given the varied needs of people, a suggestion that
               | is reasonable to 5% of them is not bad going. And even
               | 0.001% of them is infinity more than all the alternatives
               | you've suggested in this thread thus far :-)
        
             | larrybud wrote:
             | I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but let's play this
             | out. You really don't use your phone for any of the
             | following? (Web or app)
             | 
             | Online banking
             | 
             | Online shopping
             | 
             | Social media
             | 
             | Airlines, hotels, or other Tavel bookings
             | 
             | Online news sources requiring accounts Eg hacker news, NYT,
             | etc
             | 
             | Medical / pharmacy
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | Correct. I do all of those things, but on my computer.
               | Aside from not really trusting my phone, I find having a
               | full sized screen and a real keyboard makes things
               | immensely easier.
               | 
               | I use my phone mainly for text/SMS, and navigation/maps
               | while driving, maybe watching YouTube if I need to kill
               | some time. I don't really do social media at all.
        
               | officeplant wrote:
               | As someone who finally moved to a bank that actually has
               | web access/ phone app in 2020, its perfectly possible to
               | live without using your phone for anything on that list.
               | Hell I didn't start using my phone for
               | medical/banking/travel stuff until 2020 and onward.
               | 
               | It's inconvenient, but possible. I'm in my 30's and I
               | just largely avoided needing any of that because I live
               | in a rural area and don't travel much. Of course I don't
               | miss my old local bank at all.
        
           | Strum355 wrote:
           | There are android apps specifically for this that can fetch
           | from a git repo and you can input your GPG password, with
           | autofill and all
        
           | leonsmith wrote:
           | https://github.com/mssun/passforios which also uses the
           | safari password manager flow so its pretty seamless
        
       | CommitSyn wrote:
       | Welp, looks like they were able to copy vaults to crack and,
       | worse yet, they have the unencrypted URLs to choose what to
       | target.
       | 
       | > The threat actor was also able to copy a backup of customer
       | vault data from the encrypted storage container which is stored
       | in a proprietary binary format that contains both unencrypted
       | data, such as website URLs, as well as fully-encrypted sensitive
       | fields such as website usernames and passwords, secure notes, and
       | form-filled data. These encrypted fields remain secured with
       | 256-bit AES encryption and can only be decrypted with a unique
       | encryption key derived from each user's master password using our
       | Zero Knowledge architecture. As a reminder, the master password
       | is never known to LastPass and is not stored or maintained by
       | LastPass. The encryption and decryption of data is performed only
       | on the local LastPass client. For more information about our Zero
       | Knowledge architecture and encryption algorithms, please see
       | here.
        
         | tokenfg wrote:
         | 'form-filled data' includes 'Payment cards' section I believe,
         | which should then make securing your cards an even larger
         | priority than having to change your passwords
        
         | idatum wrote:
         | LastPass is an enormous target, obviously. And, I guess, the
         | inevitable has happened: Encrypted trove of passwords is "out
         | there".
         | 
         | Let's assume one's master password is strong. And that LastPass
         | knows how to encrypt data. We're really down to whether 256-bit
         | AES can be brute forced, right? And I guess understanding
         | phishing attacks.
         | 
         | I mean, yes, wouldn't it be great of LastPass took the measures
         | with its development environment years ago? So put another way:
         | Lack of operational excellence hopefully is made for in strong
         | encryption. I hope.
        
           | WhatsName wrote:
           | contains both unencrypted data, such as website URLs,
           | 
           | No I think this is the worst that could have happened short
           | of loosing the clear-text passwords. Noone is going to stop
           | the attackers from looking for high-value login URLs and than
           | spear-phish the password for the offline vault.
           | 
           | Forcing a password reset onto customers is not going to help
           | LastPass here.
        
         | rob74 wrote:
         | Hm, with all that talk about "zero knowledge architecture", I
         | thought your vault file would be encrypted "in one piece", not
         | just the passwords. If they have the URLs in clear text, that's
         | not really zero knowledge, now is it? And why do they need the
         | URLs anyway, when I can share the passwords just fine from my
         | local PC? Statistics?!
        
       | hbn wrote:
       | Why do people use password managers that store all the data on
       | their own servers? Having a centralized database filled with full
       | login information for hundreds of thousands of accounts across
       | all your users (and accounts users clearly care about, mind you,
       | otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to use a password
       | manager) makes for such an obvious jackpot attack vector that
       | causes situations like this.
       | 
       | I've used Enpass for years now which lets you sync your password
       | database to DropBox, Google Drive, iCloud, etc. So I still have
       | to protect whichever cloud storage account I'm syncing with, but
       | at least it's not an obvious place to find passwords for
       | thousands of users. And if someone did have access to my Google
       | or Apple account, they could reset a lot of my logins anyway.
       | 
       | And I know this isn't technically as safe as the self-hosted
       | options, but it offers the same convenience as LastPass without
       | the obvious painting-a-target-on-your-own-back by handing all
       | your passwords over to The Passwords Store.
        
         | camel_Snake wrote:
         | Just chiming in to say I've been satisfied as an Enpass user as
         | well. Felt like a good middle-ground to me and I bought the app
         | before the restructured their pricing model so I was
         | grandfathered in.
        
       | rangersanger wrote:
       | * * *
        
       | d2049 wrote:
       | Similar to "not your keys, not your crypto" is there not an
       | analogy to be made for passwords? Genuinely interested in the
       | reasoning of people who store their passwords in a cloud service
       | they don't control.
        
         | alanfranz wrote:
         | It's your keys. The master password is yours only. Plaintext
         | passwords don't exist in remote services; basically they're a
         | specialized version of a storage system (Dropbox?Google Drive?
         | S3?) optimized for password entry sharing between devices,
         | versioning, etc.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | This will keep going until there exists a cloud backend that
         | you do control. People won't go back to non-cloud.
        
       | jackson1442 wrote:
       | @dang, could the title be updated to indicate that this is
       | another update to the existing blog post? Currently reads like
       | it's a new incident, not the aug2022 incident.
        
         | iLoveOncall wrote:
         | It absolutely is a new incident. LastPass is in PR damage
         | control mode and trying to make it seem like accessing those
         | backups was inevitable after their source code theft, but it's
         | not the fucking case.
         | 
         | This is yet another failure on LastPass' end. The only thing in
         | common is the attacker, that's it.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Sure, I've added "[updated]" above.
        
         | ghostpepper wrote:
         | They updated the fifth paragraph down to mention that encrypted
         | passwords and unencrypted metadata has been stolen - in my mind
         | that practically qualifies as a new incident
        
       | heluser wrote:
       | Not surprising to see another LastPass incident but I wonder why
       | nowadays anyone would choose LastPass over 1password
        
         | CookieCrisp wrote:
         | I switched to 1password after this breach was first announced,
         | but I find it a lot more annoying to use (and I found Bitwarden
         | even worse). Granted, nowhere near as annoying as the breach.
         | Lastpass got in my way a lot less frequently though.
        
         | bryfb wrote:
         | I certainly wouldn't choose LastPass over 1Password, but given
         | 1Password is deprecating local storage I wouldn't recommend
         | 1Password anymore either.
        
           | heluser wrote:
           | I used to have a local only manager but then, obviously,
           | syncing becomes a problem. And then it becomes a choice
           | between syncing an encrypted blob using your own solution
           | (potentially not very secure) vs using a provider who still
           | treats your data as an encrypted blob with no access to the
           | data and tries to do it securely. I think the provider is
           | still more secure (again assuming the 1password access model
           | not talking about LastPass-like providers) plus much more
           | convenient. So if not 1password what would be a
           | recommendation assuming syncing is required?
        
       | AdmiralAsshat wrote:
       | Why in God's name would they store the URLs unencrypted? Even if
       | they don't crack the account password, you've just given the
       | attackers a lovely dossier of every place I've ever visited
       | frequently enough to make an account. And this is _far worse_
       | than simply doing reverse-lookups of my email address across site
       | breaches, since I use multiple email addresses and alias-only
       | logins.
       | 
       | Nice. Fucking. Job.
        
         | edsimpson wrote:
         | Does anyone know if bitwarden encrypts the URL? A quick search
         | of their docs didn't turn anything up.
        
           | sliken wrote:
           | Each unique Bitwarden account has an encryption key derived
           | from your Master Password, according to the methods defined
           | in Encryption. This encryption key is used to encrypt all
           | Vault data.
           | 
           | From: https://bitwarden.com/help/account-encryption-key/
           | 
           | Seems crazy for anyone to keep using LastPass
        
         | joenathanone wrote:
         | Not to mention some of the saved URLs may include sensitive
         | information in the URL query string, including things like
         | email address, physical address, etc...
        
         | meroje wrote:
         | Presumably this would be to ease looking up individual items
         | but 1password has been able to encrypt those since 2012. Nice
         | indeed
        
         | jasonhansel wrote:
         | Also: thanks to "forgot my password" features, if someone gets
         | your email password, they can now find and access all your
         | (non-2FA-enabled) accounts.
        
       | mjsweet wrote:
       | I just went into my old lastpass account to try and wind down the
       | account, delete everything, and then close the account.
       | 
       | No option to "select all" in the list so I resorted to clicking
       | the check box on by one down the page. I accidentally slightly
       | clicked outside a check box... guess what? Everything gets
       | deselected.
       | 
       | Start over.
       | 
       | Ok start again, maybe I want to list in alphabetical order rather
       | than group by category to minimise mistakes. Whoops, selecting
       | that option deselects everything in the list.
       | 
       | 300 odd deleted in batches of 30-40.
       | 
       | When a company's whole application is covered in anti-patterns
       | and dark UX to make it as hard as possible to leave then
       | companies like this deserve to die.
       | 
       | Deleting the account is a bit tricky too.
       | 
       | 1. Go into account settings in the top right drop down 2. In the
       | Links area click on "My Account" which spawns a new browser
       | window 3. Click the red "Delete or Reset Account", you can't miss
       | all the red buttons 4. You can either reset your account or
       | delete, choose delete 5. A modal will appear telling you stuff,
       | enter your master pw, a reason why your leaving and then click
       | delete 6. You will be asked twice if you really really want to do
       | this 7. Press ok
        
         | drewnick wrote:
         | I also did not have a "Select all" box but was able to check
         | the first entry, scroll down, hold shift, and check the last
         | box which then selected all items in between. So I removed all
         | of 600 of my accounts in about 20 seconds. Hope this helps
         | someone.
        
         | phillipseamore wrote:
         | Something like this might work, open DevTools and do: document.
         | querySelectorAll('[type="checkbox"]').forEach(function(el)
         | {el.checked=true;})
        
         | robszumski wrote:
         | It's become so clear that users of a SaaS deserve more control
         | how their data is used and stored.
         | 
         | You should absolutely be able to crypto-shred your data from
         | such an important service. This experience sounds awful.
        
           | flandish wrote:
           | I had migrated away a year or so ago. Tried to log in to
           | confirm, it did not work. Tried password reset. No reset
           | email. So that's good... I guess.
           | 
           | I remember deleting my acct. not sure if I manually deleted
           | entries _before_ though.
           | 
           | That said - if a data breach includes backup access... is
           | your account ever really deleted?
        
         | invalidator wrote:
         | I did it in the web UI in a couple minutes with down-space-
         | down-space-down-space....
         | 
         | Also make sure to go to Advanced Options, View Deleted Items,
         | and purge them from there.
        
         | rob74 wrote:
         | I don't think that's dark UX, it's just shitty UI design. What
         | bugs me the most about LastPass is how it tries to be so damned
         | _helpful_ and offers to fill in credentials on sites that they
         | clearly don 't belong to, or offers to save credentials on a
         | site where I alredy clicked "don't save" 1000 times, no really,
         | I _don 't want to_ save my private passwords in my company
         | vault thank you very much, why the f$%& don't you have a "don't
         | bug me again" checkbox in this sh*$$y popup?!
        
       | snailmailman wrote:
       | Wow. This is basically the worst case scenario. Attackers got
       | access to the vaults themselves? While they are encrypted, it all
       | depends on how secure your master password is now. Because the
       | brute-forcing has almost certainly already begun.
       | 
       | I switched away from lastpass to Bitwarden a while ago, and have
       | changed many of my passwords since then. But I'll probably rotate
       | most of my passwords anyway, out of an abundance of caution.
        
         | FatActor wrote:
         | This is not the worst case scenario.
         | 
         | This is literally the _best_ case hack scenario.
         | 
         | Why? Because we already know that encrypting something using
         | their strategy is essentially uncrackable.
         | 
         | AES256 is quantum resistant.
         | 
         | The worst case would be silent exfiltration from the LastPass
         | application via malware to steal user master passwords.
         | 
         | In the security game, the crypto is the strongest part, the
         | crypto-system is the weakest part.
        
           | lowapm wrote:
           | I agree this isn't the worst-case as you mentioned above.
           | However, it is far from the best case scenario which is
           | closer to "only fake testing vault data was exposed".
           | 
           | The vault leak is acceptable in terms of Lastpass's formal
           | threat model but could still result in real user pain e.g.
           | targeted spear phishing using plaintext fields like URLs, or
           | compromise for users with weak passwords.
        
           | CookieCrisp wrote:
           | While I agree with your main point, I think confirmation that
           | the URLs weren't encrypted and that they can all be tied to
           | your Lastpass signup information is far from "best case"
        
             | panarky wrote:
             | Lastpass called storing URLs in plaintext their "Zero
             | Knowledge Architecture".
             | 
             | "Zero Knowledge" should join "Full Self Driving" in the
             | malicious marketing hall of fame.
        
               | Dykam wrote:
               | Which is a shame, because zero-knowledge actually can
               | mean something. But it's yet another term with actual
               | value hijacked for marketing.
        
             | FatActor wrote:
             | I missed that part. What is the problem about URL exposure?
             | 
             | EDIT: all three replies to this comment are about sex-
             | shaming people via their email address, ip, home address.
             | hardly pearl clutching. go to DefCon some day, you'll see
             | how that information is basically for sale legally, let
             | alone on the darkweb.
             | 
             | i don't have a horse in this race because i use my own
             | password storage software but the amount of FUD in this
             | thread is cray cray.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | sockaddr wrote:
               | Probably that now it is known that people with a lastpass
               | account of email address X also have an account at
               | login.furriesindiapers.com or something really insane
               | like dailywire.com
        
               | phillipseamore wrote:
               | Or worse... find everyone that has a
               | "WePostDamningInformationAboutOurDictator.com/wp-admin"
               | URL
        
               | sockaddr wrote:
               | Yeah, yikes.
        
               | phillipseamore wrote:
               | With a list of names, billing addresses, email addresses,
               | telephone numbers, IP addresses (sounds like it's a list
               | since the user first started to use LP) along with URLs
               | having a 99.9% probability of the individual having an
               | account at the URL... that can be pretty much
               | catastrophic. Create a list of OnlyFans subscribers, or
               | if there is a subdomain used for OF creators you can
               | compile a list of them. Any service that uses unique
               | subdomains (like the users username) means you can
               | connect usernames with individuals and so on.
        
               | g_p wrote:
               | Since they're tied to people's account details, address
               | and similar, I'd imagine quite aggressive blackmail
               | opportunities going forward if the data gets to the hands
               | of criminals.
               | 
               | Think postal letter named and addressed, giving your
               | email, and the adult (or other embarrassing) sites you
               | were a member of listed on the letter, along with details
               | of a bank account to make immediate payment to...
               | 
               | Also, you may be able to identify people working for
               | certain high profile orgs (defence contractors, etc) and
               | target them further if you can gleam from URLs they have
               | access to internal systems by specific URL.
        
               | poglet wrote:
               | > that contains both unencrypted data, such as website
               | URLs, as well as fully-encrypted sensitive fields such as
               | website usernames and passwords, secure notes, and form-
               | filled data.
        
               | hunter2_ wrote:
               | I wonder why URLs would be unencrypted given that all the
               | other things are encrypted. I guess browser integration
               | relies on it?
        
               | micahcc wrote:
               | right, they need to know whether to offer you a password
               | or not regardless of whether you have re-locked
        
               | phillipseamore wrote:
               | That doesn't require it to be stored in the clear on the
               | server. Extensions/apps could keep a domain list (don't
               | see why they need full URLs) in memory after lock.
        
               | alexhjones wrote:
               | I might be misunderstanding, but if the url was
               | adobe.com, then it would be possible to find the
               | corresponding password from that adobe breach for the
               | same email address (not trivial, but if someone moves in
               | the right circles I assume they could get a whole host of
               | the big breaches in a searchable format).
               | 
               | A subset of users might have reused the breached
               | password(s) for their lastpass master password.
               | 
               | Not sure if you could also feed the breached passwords
               | into the brute force tool to give it a headstart, in case
               | they did a slight variation on a breached password for
               | the lastpass master password.
        
               | randerson wrote:
               | Any information that helps an attacker craft a more
               | targeted attack is useful to the attacker. With URL
               | exposure the attackers now have a comprehensive list of
               | services that a person depends on and where further data
               | about them is stored.
        
         | bushbaba wrote:
         | These services should automate the reset of your passwords each
         | month. Would make such an attack less impactful
        
       | haunter wrote:
       | Theoretically this can happen to Bitwarden Web Vault too, right?
       | Unless I self host it of course
        
         | jupp0r wrote:
         | What makes you think that it couldn't happen to your self
         | hosted vault?
        
         | sliken wrote:
         | Sure, but it's 100% encrypted, not some silly case where things
         | like URLs are in plaintext.
        
       | blakesterz wrote:
       | It's not clear to me, does this mean EVERYONE that uses LastPass
       | got hit or some subset of users?
        
       | dangero wrote:
       | _To further increase the security of your master password,
       | LastPass utilizes a stronger-than-typical implementation of
       | 100,100 iterations of the Password-Based Key Derivation Function
       | (PBKDF2), a password-strengthening algorithm that makes it
       | difficult to guess your master password. You can check the
       | current number of PBKDF2 iterations for your LastPass account
       | here._
       | 
       | I just checked my account and it says 5000 not 100,100 -- there's
       | no way I would go in and change that setting, so this is pretty
       | disingenuous. They must have changed defaults at some point
        
         | tokenfg wrote:
         | Mine was set to 5000 too, which is the old default. Does this
         | make the vault data significantly more vulnerable?
        
           | snailmailman wrote:
           | From what I understand, yes. PBKDF2 is the algorithm that
           | goes from password->key. This key is then used to encrypt the
           | vault. Guessing the key itself is impossibly difficult.
           | Attackers will instead try to guess the password, run their
           | guess through several thousand rounds of PBKDF2, and attempt
           | to use those keys to decrypt the vault.
           | 
           | The algorithm is designed to be run in iterations to be
           | tunable. more rounds takes a lot longer. this makes for both
           | a slower login, but also slower brute-force attempts for the
           | attacker. The attacker can likely still generate guesses in
           | parallel, but each individual password guess will take
           | considerably longer against more iterations.
           | 
           | Lastpass changed the old default for a good reason. I'm
           | surprised they didn't update all accounts to at least the new
           | default.
        
         | snailmailman wrote:
         | I do think the default a long time ago used to be very low. I
         | know I went in at account creation and set it to something way
         | higher than it's default at the time.
         | 
         | Looking now though, it says 100100 for me. But i also know i
         | changed my master password at some point, so maybe i got reset
         | to the current default.
        
           | g_p wrote:
           | According to [1], there were 5,000 client-side rounds of
           | SHA256 in key derivation in June 2015.
           | 
           | It does sound like a missed opportunity to have an at-login
           | upgrade mechanism to upgrade KDF rounds that can be carried
           | out seamlessly or near-seamlessly during the login process.
           | Or at least actively nudging users to change password and
           | thus raise their KDF rounds that way through the default.
           | 
           | [1] https://blog.lastpass.com/2015/06/lastpass-security-
           | notice/
        
           | hunter2_ wrote:
           | One would think that the UI where one routinely enters their
           | master password could silently double as a _start using the
           | new default_ UI, as the change-password UI seemingly does.
        
       | shadowgovt wrote:
       | I've done a lot of things wrong with OPSEC in my life...
       | 
       | ... But I never trusted a third party to store all my passwords.
        
       | sli wrote:
       | My local, managed-by-me KeyPass database has never had a security
       | incident or even come close.
       | 
       | That's all I'm gonna say about that.
        
         | bagels wrote:
         | Would you actually know?
        
           | sodality2 wrote:
           | By that logic you also wouldn't know if your keys/password
           | database stored by Lastpass/others (in the browser extension
           | or app) is stolen, it's all just local data.
        
             | bagels wrote:
             | Isn't that what this whole thread is about, it being
             | discovered that LastPass had an actual breach?
        
         | alanfranz wrote:
         | not yet.
         | 
         | But there's actually a lot of surface attack area for those
         | open source tools as well. If you're able to sneak into the
         | supply chain and replace the _client_ with a modified,
         | malicious version, you can make it send the master password AND
         | the database to a remote server. No need to compromise the
         | server. This is true for most commercial password managers as
         | well: but I'd expect the security to be tighter there. No
         | random maintainer should get access to the release page.
         | 
         | My idea was like this: * Use KeepassX built from source * Use
         | Dropbox to sync the kdb files (always encrypted) * Use a
         | firewall to prevent any network connection to keepassx; this
         | way even a compromised client cannot connect and send the data
         | somewhere else. * When updating KeepassX, always build from an
         | older git commit; I assumed that in ~15-20 days if there's a
         | fuckup on git source, it will be announced.
         | 
         | BUT: it was hard. Bitwarden just works better. I still build it
         | from source on desktop computers, though, and take a look at
         | the website before updating, just to stay sure. (And I think
         | IOS app process will make it harder to submit malware there
         | anyway).
        
           | Scoundreller wrote:
           | Lots of good suggestions here.
           | 
           | > you can make it send the master password AND the database
           | to a remote server.
           | 
           | I wish it was easier to completely restrict an executable
           | from ever touching the network. Like, point and click.
           | 
           | Now, there's ways around that (open the browser and a long
           | hyperlink of secrets), but yeesh, it should be easier to
           | block the direct links.
        
       | sn0w_crash wrote:
       | Again?
        
       | JackMorgan wrote:
       | I switched to KeePassXC and syncthing and other than a little
       | bump once when I accidentally caused a merge I've been really
       | pleased with the setup.
        
       | lbj wrote:
       | Well.... Unencrypted access to all the sites each username/email
       | has an account with could be very damaging for some individuals.
        
       | snug wrote:
       | I've tried a lot the password safes/vaults, and none of them work
       | nearly as well as Chrome/Googles password manager
       | 
       | You can even use it on iOS, and even use it by default. Even
       | apples Keychain password manager works pretty well if you're all
       | in on apple ecosystem. Only reason I see why you would not use it
       | is if you're not using Chrome or Safari, which is most people.
       | 
       | Yeah, yeah, google evil
        
         | mook wrote:
         | The risk there is more you accidentally make a bad comment on
         | YouTube and Google bans your account, I think. I have no idea
         | if I'd still be able to access my passwords if that happens. At
         | least, personally I feel Google deciding to disallow me from
         | logging in is more likely than Google losing my passwords.
        
           | snug wrote:
           | That is only a risk for syncing, you would still still have
           | your passwords locally saved
        
             | jackson1442 wrote:
             | Is there a local UI to view/export your passwords? The only
             | one I'm aware of is https://passwords.google.com but it's
             | been a long time since I've used a builtin browser password
             | manager.
             | 
             | also- does Google (or other browser devs) release
             | information on how they keep your passwords secure? Is it
             | even E2EE?
        
               | joshmn wrote:
               | > Is there a local UI to view/export your passwords?
               | 
               | chrome://settings/passwords
        
             | post-it wrote:
             | Are you sure? Chrome could very well lock you out.
        
         | boxed wrote:
         | Chromes password manager used to be as safe as a text file on
         | your desktop. Have they fixed it?
        
           | officeplant wrote:
           | If someone has access to my desktop I've already been
           | compromised enough to not care.
        
       | jamal-kumar wrote:
       | I'm sorry but if you were using this why are your passwords in
       | the cloud? Doesn't that whole concept set off like thousands of
       | alarm bells in your mind about how it could go wrong?
       | 
       | I know it's convenient or whatever, device synchronization or
       | whatnot but compromising security for convenience is a thing I
       | thought we might have been aware of avoiding at this point.
        
       | alexhjones wrote:
       | No need to brute force - if users re-used their master password,
       | it will potentially cross-reference with the correct email and
       | password combo from any number of previous data breaches and
       | pwnage across the net.
        
         | yasp wrote:
         | Good news for people who followed best practices. "I don't have
         | to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you."
        
           | AlexCoventry wrote:
           | This bear has the ability to spin up an AWS cluster of bears,
           | unfortunately.
        
             | dijit wrote:
             | AWS is probably the most expensive way to do this.
             | 
             | Either rent some machines from an ex-crypto miner, since
             | AES can be decyphered on GPUs or get some old extremely
             | cheap boxes from the hetzner auction.
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | There isn't just one bear.
        
       | phillipseamore wrote:
       | I'd like to point out to users who have 2FA on their LP access
       | and think they are safer, that does not protect the vault in a
       | compromise like this, it only enhances the security of delivering
       | the vault, the attackers here already have the vaults. Vaults are
       | only protected by password.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-22 23:00 UTC)