[HN Gopher] Passwords and Power Drills
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Passwords and Power Drills
        
       Author : harporoeder
       Score  : 113 points
       Date   : 2025-10-21 08:03 UTC (5 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (google.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (google.github.io)
        
       | lanthade wrote:
       | The power drill mention in the headline is a bit click-baity
       | because in the end while a power drill was used it was
       | unnecessary and was not the solution to the problem. Had they
       | known how to properly use the hardware security devices they had
       | the power drill wouldn't have been deployed at all.
        
         | Thorrez wrote:
         | Well, it would have been necessary if they hadn't managed to
         | find the employee in California who had the password for the
         | California safe memorized.
        
           | hshdhdhehd wrote:
           | There are lots of alternative ways this could have played
           | out. Yes.
        
         | jumhyn wrote:
         | But the additional cards may very well have been necessary to
         | understand "there is something wrong with our usage of the
         | cards, this error is not a one-off failure due to corrupted
         | data or broken hardware or other problem local to the
         | California card(s)". Having multiple independent reproductions
         | of an issue helps you narrow down what the commonalities are!
        
         | Daviey wrote:
         | Sorry, but someone happening to have memory of the combination
         | can also not be considered an adequate solution.
        
           | reader9274 wrote:
           | He clearly had the combination written down
        
             | Noumenon72 wrote:
             | The text says "Fortunately, another colleague in California
             | had memorized the combination to the on-site safe". You
             | might think that's unlikely and he probably wrote it down,
             | but it's not "clear" from the text.
        
       | bfgeek wrote:
       | > "At this point, the engineers in Australia decided that a
       | brute-force approach to their safe problem was warranted and
       | applied a power drill to the task. An hour later, the safe was
       | open--but even the newly retrieved cards triggered the same error
       | message."
       | 
       | What happened here (from what I recall) was far funnier than this
       | does it credit.
       | 
       | The SREs first attempted to use a mallet (hammer) on the safe
       | (which they had to first buy from the local hardware store -
       | don't worry it got expensed later), then after multiple rounds of
       | "persuasion" they eventually called in a professional (aka. a
       | locksmith) who used a drill+crowbar to finally liberate the
       | keycard.
       | 
       | The postmortem had fun step by step photos of the safe in various
       | stages of disassembly.
        
         | zatkin wrote:
         | What are the chances that the photos could be shared?
        
       | netsharc wrote:
       | What is this, sitcom slapstick? The slapstick of storing the
       | security combination to the safe on the system that is locked by
       | the card which inside the safe; and the slapstick of "You're
       | inserting it wrong"...
        
       | kmoser wrote:
       | > It took an additional hour for the team to realize that the
       | green light on the smart card reader did not, in fact, indicate
       | that the card had been inserted correctly.
       | 
       | I'm not sure which is worse: bad UI/UX use of lights, or
       | inadequately trained engineers who misunderstood the lights.
        
         | GuB-42 wrote:
         | I'd go with bad UI/UX.
         | 
         | A lot of progress has been made by acknowledging that people
         | are idiots and that the system has to work around that. Toyota,
         | which went from one of the worst to one the most reliable
         | automaker is known for formalizing idiot-proofing.
         | 
         | If the reader was able to read the card both way, there
         | wouldn't have been a problem and no training required. The next
         | best thing would be for the card to not fit upside down. Or
         | have a clear message "try flipping the card". It is not
         | something you should train people for, it should be obvious.
         | 
         | I also suspect the reader was in an unusual configuration,
         | because everyone knows how to use smart cards and they probably
         | did what they always do instinctively and it didn't work. On
         | the thousands of times I did it, I don't remember having ever
         | inserted my credit card the wrong way and don't remember anyone
         | who did, it is just so instinctive. For an entire team to miss
         | that, there must be something wrong with how the reader is set
         | up.
        
           | chasing0entropy wrote:
           | Agree.
           | 
           | The fundamental lesson of at least half my information
           | systems undergraduate courses was you adapt the system to
           | observed user behavior, do not expect the user to adapt their
           | behavior to the system.
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | > On the thousands of times I did it, I don't remember having
           | ever inserted my credit card the wrong way and don't remember
           | anyone who did, it is just so instinctive.
           | 
           | I have done it lots of times! With machines where you just
           | dip the tip, you're bound to put the side with the chip in,
           | but most machines want it facing up, and some want it the
           | other way. The iconography is only illustrative once you've
           | messed it up at those machines enough times (around me,
           | Walgreens has difficult machines). Readers where you insert
           | the whole card are easier to mess up, too.
           | 
           | > If the reader was able to read the card both way, there
           | wouldn't have been a problem and no training required. The
           | next best thing would be for the card to not fit upside down.
           | Or have a clear message "try flipping the card". It is not
           | something you should train people for, it should be obvious.
           | 
           | I suspect the HSM was an off the shelf component. The real
           | issue with training is that a system with a complex startup
           | procedure hadn't been restarted in 5 years. You should
           | rehearse complex procedures at least once a year, otherwise
           | there's a good chance nobody with experience has done it.
           | Also, maybe someone would have flagged the issue of needing
           | the cards to start the system than grants access to the
           | cards. (Although drill + 1 hour is a reasonable recovery
           | procedure that was obvious and didn't need training,
           | apparently)
        
         | numpad0 wrote:
         | If it's not obvious to multiple Google SREs and no instruction
         | sticker was present, that's a bad UI.
        
         | chrisandchris wrote:
         | I would say of all companies that have great SRE, I would not
         | have expected Google to be one of them were this process was so
         | brutaly flawed:
         | 
         | - Storing the safes password - which is required for the
         | password manager to start - ... in this very same password
         | manager? - Failing at trying to insert the card in multiple
         | ways into the card reader (it's like USB, you're using it the
         | wrong way around). I would have tried that before (while?)
         | drilling the safe. - Having no clue (no documentation) how to
         | restart the service, despite it having passwords in it? If
         | passwords are lost, all encrypted stuff is lost, forever.
         | 
         | If there's one thing I think is central to document personal or
         | corporate), it is how to get accesss to passwords _fast and
         | reliable_ whenever there's a disaster recovery.
        
           | Zopieux wrote:
           | What part of "best effort, unsupported" do you not
           | understand, if you've read the article?
           | 
           | You're underestimating the amount of goodwill-run, unstaffed
           | projects that any big corporation accrues over time, which
           | accidentally become load bearing without anyone realizing
           | until something goes wrong. Such unstaffed projects are
           | usually very stable (from not having pressure to add features
           | or earn profit) and therefore "just work" for _years_ until
           | something unusual, like an accidental DDoS, happens. In that
           | time, the original author(s) and everyone with context have
           | left the company. This is a very hard process /human problem
           | to solve at FAANG scale.
        
       | mtlynch wrote:
       | Sorry for the offtopic comment, but it's bizarre to me that
       | Google is hosting their book on Github with a github.io domain.
       | Their previous two SRE books are hosted at https://sre.google on
       | Google-owned IPs.[0]
       | 
       | What was that decision process? "We're Google, and we're
       | literally writing a book about how good we are at hosting
       | services. But hosting some static HTML files that are almost
       | entirely text? That's a tough one. We'd better outsource that to
       | one of our competitors."
       | 
       | [0] https://sre.google/books/
        
         | nashashmi wrote:
         | I think one is a portal for GitHub developers, while the other
         | is a public polished site. I reminisced the early Google
         | forthright attitude that made life so simple and human.
        
       | kingforaday wrote:
       | What I really like about this story is that Google for all that
       | they are still have normal fallible people just like us behind
       | the scenes.
        
       | Vexs wrote:
       | > restart required a hardware security module (HSM) smart card.
       | 
       | Out of curiosity, does anyone know why? My guess would be the PW
       | DB would be encrypted with some token generated from this card.
       | 
       | I've had lots of "I have a secret and the server needs it" type
       | problems but I've never been very happy with my solutions- smart
       | cards seem like potentially an elegant solution.
        
         | Freak_NL wrote:
         | This article highlights exactly why a HSM may be potentially
         | elegant, but also really really dependant on embedding the
         | process for using it in your operational processes (which would
         | include performing that operation regularly to ensure it still
         | works and that knowledge of its use is retained).
         | 
         | For a 'best effort' hosted internal service, this is not a good
         | choice.
        
       | internet_points wrote:
       | Wonderful. Anyone read the full book? Is it all this good? :-)
        
         | Smaug123 wrote:
         | It's mostly a rather dense engineering textbook, but it
         | contains lots of things I found insightful. I most particularly
         | remember a segment like "We make things more reliable by adding
         | more layers of Swiss cheese, on the assumption that failure
         | modes are uncorrelated and it's only when all the failures take
         | place that the system breaks. But this doesn't work when the
         | system is being attacked by an intelligence, because an
         | intelligence will explicitly correlate failures."
         | 
         | The book is very much designed for Google-scale systems,
         | though: everything is assumed to be microservices, for example.
        
       | commandersaki wrote:
       | Nice parable.
       | 
       | I don't know anything about Google but I glean this Password
       | Manager service was of low importance and was shared by
       | employees. I'm thinking this would've been a non issue with a low
       | tech solution like a shared document of passwords and services or
       | a wiki page, and by virtue of being hosted on a more common
       | platform would benefit from a better SLA.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-10-26 23:02 UTC)