Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
A brief Sony password analysis (troyhunt.com)
182 points by troyhunt 1451 days ago | 70 comments



Moments after the release I accessed multiple accounts on both gmail, hotmail, yahoo and facebook using password and usernames found in these files. Impressivly I got a 'hit' every two-three accounts which I tried - which goes to suggest that the 'reuse' section of this article indeed are correct.

That said, I want to recognize Facebook's impressive and fast response to this release - where they 'disabled' all accounts linked to emails in these text files and made them go though a bunch of tests e.g. when is our birthday, what is the name of this friend.. etc.

Anyway, scary stuff, and it goes to show that even with the most secure password - you are not safer than the root user (gawker) / site security (Sony).

-----


Glad our fast response is appreciated :-). We try to stay on top of leaks like this and make sure Facebook users aren't affected, even when they share passwords with the affected sites.

-----


> Moments after the release I accessed multiple accounts on both gmail, hotmail, yahoo and facebook using password and usernames found in these files

Thanks for letting us know. We'll see you soon.

<3 the Politidirektoratet

-----


Requiring users to create passwords continues to be an engineering failure in our industry. There are some promising alternatives, but we need to realize that users are not at fault for picking poor passwords. We are at fault for not giving them better options.

-----


We did, and they didn't want it. SSL client certs, maybe. There's Login with twitter, Login with Facebook. Login with Random Site X. Oh, don't like centralized third-party authentication? The only thing you know about security is that there needs to be a lock icon? Try something else, here's OpenID: distributed, federated, customizable. Oh, too hard to understand? Confused because the address bar changes? Why are you asserting your identity on site X when you want to access to site Y? Don't even know, or want to take the time to, understand what "asserting your identity" means? Well then we'll just let you log in with a username and password.

Oh, did you forget your username? Is your caps lock key on?

Even (edit: fake) celebrities known for crazy beards and drunken movies have an opinion on login security: http://twitter.com/GALIFlANAKIS/status/77372216957861888

-----


that isn't his real account, some of "his" latest tweets: http://twitter.com/#!/GALIFlANAKIS/status/77450156102004736 http://twitter.com/#!/GALIFlANAKIS/status/77620921766129664 real account: http://twitter.com/#!/GALIFIANAKISZ they're using different letters and case. I = l, i = L

-----


Good point. I forgot to check for the "verified" icon (since twitter refuses to consider me worth "verifying"). I'll edit to reflect that.

-----


What would you suggest as better options and what are some examples of the ones you've alluded to? The way I see it, any shift away from the current common scheme would cause problems with either of both compatability and ease of use. It'd be awesome if everyone had a pgp key or something, but that's unrealistic. Some new voodoo scheme gets concocted and I worry for security rigor and whether it'll fit within existing systems.

Maybe the two-step auth method by Google (and by banks before) recently or a tweak of it is the way to go?

-----


You know what I want? I want a small, cheap USB dongle that I just plug into the PC, that magically makes all logins and passwords go away.

I don't care how it works. Just make it work, because this is stupid.

Whoever does that, and manages to get the major players behind it, is going to be the next Mark Shuttleworth, if not Mark Zuckerberg.

-----


YubiKey[1] serves a similar purpose. I use it as the second factor of authentication for my LastPass account, which stores completely random passwords for individual sites. Of course the biggest problem is always adoption, but Yubico were smart enough to make both the protocol and the server component open.

http://www.yubico.com/yubikey

-----


That's great, now what about my iPad? And iPhone? And Android device? And etc. and etc.

-----


what about public computers and malware? stealing the auth tokens stored on this usb dongle idea seems somewhat trivial to me.

-----


The key wouldn't have to ever leave the dongle. The computer could send it a payload to sign, and the dongle sends back the signature.

-----


Until you lose it.

-----


At which point I call the company that makes the dongle and request another one. At the same time, they log into every site I use and create a new random password for that site.

The hardware key is just a token... it doesn't even need to be hardware. There just needs to be some trusted third party who can vouch that user U is at machine M at time T, and field all login requests on U's behalf without a lot of manual labor or memory work on U's part.

For those cases where I don't want persistent representation, the service could be configured to ask me to enter a password when I first try to access any of the sites they handle for me, and every half-hour thereafter, or whatever.

Facebook will be in a good position to do something like this before long, if they aren't already. I don't want to use Facebook logins for this because the company has far too much baggage in other areas. It needs to be a Verisign-type company that does nothing but logins and stores nothing but username/password pairs.

-----


>At the same time, they log into every site I use and create a new random password for that site.

Uh, wait. This means they can log in into every account of yours. How secure you think that is?

-----


It had better be very damned secure, obviously. There should be a process in place for ensuring (not to mention insuring) that. If not, well, that's part of the problem to be solved, isn't it?

-----


This is _so_ close to existing already - if I could hook Google's Authenticator app into 1Password with it's Dropbox integration, I'd have pretty much exactly what you're describing.

Having said that, 1Password and Dropbox sync running on my phone, iPad, laptop, and desktop is actually a _very_ useable "single strong passphrase" multiple password management solution.

Does anyone know how secure my iPassword database is when stored on the key-shared-with-anyone-Dropbox-allows encrypted S3 buckets? (or in my not-all-that-unlikely-to-get-lost-or-stolen phone/ipad/laptop.) Their page says they use openssl with 128bit keys, and I use an 18 character password (upper & lower case, spaces and punctuation, but with 3 dictionary words separated with punc/spaces). I'm reasonably happy that's "secure enough" for me - if anyone's going to get my passwords it'll most likely be by court order (or rubber hose cryptography)

Of course, it's a closed-source app, so it'd take a fair bit of work to _prove_ to yourself that they're actually "doing the right thing" with the password database crypto.

-----


Call the company? Why can't you just log into their site and request a new one? :)

Maybe you have to actually show up physically and give a DNA sample. Oh dang, you have an evil identical twin?

-----


Curious for the reason behind the downvotes. Questions:

- Do you guys actually think the current situation is OK, with respect to the way Joe Sixpack and Jane Boxwine manage their security credentials?

- Do you think the situation will magically get better on its own without some significant centralization?

- Do you think social networking companies like Facebook or advertising companies like Google -- neither of whom consider end users to be their actual customers -- are the right ones to assume such a role?

-----


I can attest that entering a ~32-character-long ~base64 password on PSN is a real pain in the ass. :)

-----


This. The problem with secure passwords that I use (I switched to mainly unique passwords after the gawker incident) is that they are pain to type on things like xbox, android, etc.

Not only that, but some sites won't accept special characters in the password... now what do I do? I break out some crappy password that I have a chance in hell remembering.

-----


Case in point, Discover Bank doesn't allow special characters in the password. Really now?

-----


A bunch of banks don't allow special characters, some people have said it is so you can enter it over the phone (something I've never come across but I kind of doubt that.

If that really is the case, they are probably throwing out whether each character is upper or lowercase as well :/

-----


You could just plug in any standard USB keyboard...

-----


Maybe we should just send them the password in the "welcome to random service X you just signed up for" that new users always seem to get.

-----


Okay that came out wrong - what I wanted to say was that we should generate a password for the user and send it in the email the welcome email.

-----


Wait, that's not an attempt at humor? Okay, how do you solve the chicken-and-egg problem with the fact that your e-mail service also uses a password? Not to mention that e-mail generally travels in plain text.

-----


I wouldn't use this for an email service, but otherwise it would remove the issue of dublicated passwords and mean that the advantage to hacking the service was very low.

-----


The dip in frequency of passwords with 7 characters is pretty interesting. I was curious so I checked the frequency of words in /usr/share/dict/words as a function of their length (http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxl=0:|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9...). There's no such behavior in dictionary words as you can see. We can however see that in both passwords and words that the frequency of length 7 is about 80% of length 8 though. My first guess would be that length 6 gets a boost in the password data because a large number of people think a password shorter than that is too insecure. Only 36% of the passwords were dictionary words but it's still fun to guess about.

-----


I'd suggest that the dip in 7 is natural, but the peak at 8 is the interesting part. I'd argue the 8 peak is due to some of some of their websites requiring a minimum of 8 characters. It's possible that such password checks are inconsistent among their sites/domains, resulting in some passwords being less (that's why we do see some password of shorter length than 8). If the 8 was around 6,000 we'd see a natural falloff curve as one would expect.

-----


Yeah, I think you're right about it relating to reused passwords. I've also seen a lot of sites having passwords with a minimum length of 6 so the shape would make sense if there's an exponential fall of from 6 added to a fall of from 8.

-----


Too bad the universe of gawker/sony collisions is so small. I'd be interested to see if this plays out with real data.

-----


It's supposed to be a skewed normal curve, right? So with individual site requirements boosting the 6 AND 8 minimum character lengths it would all make sense, since that's where we get 2 spikes. Remove those spikes and we get the nice normal chart as expected.

-----


"But the really startling bit is the use of non-alphanumeric or characters: Yep, less than 1% of passwords contained a non-alphanumeric character."

This doesn't surprise me at all. Non-alphanumeric characters are hostile for users to type in often. Add other peripherals like phones and a PS3 controller and it's even harder.

-----


When the iPhone's App Store appeared I thought a lot about this because my password was really hard to type on it. One of the ideas that got through my mind was that password could be two fields instead of one and with simpler words. Just an idea, I have not much knowledge about this topic.

-----


Hostile? Really? How is typing '$' instead of '4' any different from typing 'A' instead of 'a'? They both use the same shift key. Watch, I'll do it again. How about a seven? See? 7.

Now for the ampersand...just hold the 7 and reach for the shift key... &%$#$ FUCK! The little bastard just BIT ME!

I'm sorry, you're absolutely correct - those non-alphanumerics ARE hostile.

-----


The services/apps are often hostile to it, in my experience. For a while I had a mental password-generation scheme that involved commas, and about 50% of websites would reject my password for having an illegal character, sometimes explicitly, other times just breaking in weird ways. After one site let me set my password to one involving a special character, but wouldn't let me enter that same password on the login form, I became wary of using special characters in passwords. (The site was a bank, not some random forum.)

-----


Nah, they have a great reason - if they restrict you to alphanumeric characters, it's easier to prevent XSS when they display your password back to you later on in the flow :-).

-----


My favorite is when I pick a 20 character password (keypass, ahoy!), and register using that. Works great, until I try and log in, whereupon I realize they silently cut off n characters from the end of the password when saving it on the backend.

Heck, at one place, n was 12. Go figure.

-----


Some systems restrict you to alphanumeric passwords (generally for no good reason). If you reuse your password across systems (or you have a formula for creating passwords) then you are less likely to use special characters in case 1 system requires a different one.

Additionally, entering symbols on a phone keypad or touch screen is usually a little harder.

-----


There's no shift key on my game controllers.

-----


R2 comes close, though.

-----


& is physically more difficult to type than U because of the hand stretch from holding the shift key. Not everybody has the same size hands :). While typing letters is easy, special chars are more awkward just because of where they are on the keyboard.

-----


Wow, the Gawker and Sony hacks have created an incredible opportunity to analyze people's use of passwords. Two thirds of the (granted, only 88) accounts in common between the two hacks used identical passwords!

-----


I often use the same password for sites I don't really care about. This does not mean I use the same password on my work / banking / eBay / paypal accounts.

This might explain why so many people used the same password for Gawker and SonyPictures.

-----


I think this should be the main point. The sites you care about (email, facebook) should have a unique password. The sites that don't matter can have a login with your common password.

This is much more reasonable than asking everybody to remember 50 unique passwords.

-----


Not quite - it's actually TWO THIRDS that used identical passwords. Nasty.

-----


Correct, thank you!

-----


And you have to take into account that (as he also mentions) these dbs came out in a different time. Which might skew results quite a bit. They could have been changed in the meantime. When you get a password database you want to know how many passwords are the same at that precise moment...

-----


Those graphs should really be column or row graphs. Their is no such things as '7.5' characters, so it is kind of misleading. It would also make it much easier to see interpret information, like the fact that 16 is the longest password used. As for the Character Types, that data isn't even connected, so a line graph doesn't fits even less.

-----


Great analysis, but using pie charts with 4 shades of blue is unreadable.

-----


Using pie charts with any color combination is unreadable. See Edward Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information for a detailed explanation.

-----


To make unique passwords for each site I use a simple formula on the domain name that I can work out in my head and append it to a "master" password. An example formula could be "take the last 2 letters of the domain name and shift them 1 letter forwards".

This means your passwords always have different hashes, which will reduce brute force attacks. Depending on the complexity of your formula and how much time the attacker has, it may not be possible to work out your GMail password from your Sony one.

Another password tip I read was moving your hands up (or right) 1 row when typing. For example, "a" becomes "q". This adds an extra step to creating a dictionary for an attack so should secure your password a bit.

-----


The problem with this approach is that you get exposed when a website stores their passwords as plaintext. Someone who was smart enough to notice the pattern in your formula could then use that info to get at your other accounts.

-----


Did you notice one of the passwords mentioned as being found in readily available rainbow tables was 1qazZAQ! - the leftmost column of keysn a keyboard down then up-with-shift-held-down. That's an indication that the password cracking community is perfectly aware of "keyboard pattern" passwords.

-----


It makes sense that attackers are likely to know the steps we take to make secure passwords but a password that's been "keyboard shifted" would be slightly more secure as it is an extra variation for a dictionary to include.

-----


Very true, though the ease of breaking this would vary widely based on the formula and the master password. If you knew my Facebook password was "CheeseFace" then you'd guess that my Twitter one was "CheeseTwit" but if you knew my Facebook password was "rsuifhskjcv" then you have no idea that my Twitter one was "rsuifhsksuw".

-----


Is a Sony contest site really "high security" in the minds of users?

If I were entering I would use an easily guessed password for it because I don't care that much about the account. Email and banks get much better passwords.

-----


A Sophos survey found that 48% of users use "a few different passwords."

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200911/3184/Interne...

I have interviewed a few people about their password strategies and quite a few seem to have a tiered password approach. But that is still an easy setup to exploit, as I explain here:

http://www.filterjoe.com/2010/05/14/the-usual-way-to-manage-...

Furthermore, I've noticed in my interviews that few people realize that the account they need to guard most is their e-mail account. They may have a 3 password strategy but, it goes something like:

worst password: forums, news sites, Sony, etc. better password: email, social best password: banks, brokerage, commerce

Once someone gets into your main email account, it's usually pretty easy to break into all the other accounts unless you have a unique password for every account.

-----


I doubt many users do that kind of distinction between low and high security sites. Watching my mother I don't believe she got more than one password at all and that's the sort of user that is affected the most by these attacks.

-----


The safe password rules are simple and well known:

1. Eight chars minimum.

2. At least three different types of chars out of these four: small and large letters, digits and special symbols.

3. No known words of any language and no names, not even interchanged with digits like 3 for E, 5 for S, 1 for l or 7 for T.

4. HTTPS secure login.

5. Never show or transmit unencrypted passwords.

Unfortunately too many website designers don't even know these rules or don't care to enforce them on their members. Some sites don't even allow special symbols or do not have a minimum length requirement.

If your site stores even more sensitive information like credit card data, SSNs &c. then this requirements and more are even prescribed by industry standards and in some cases even the law.

It's too bad PSN didn't care about any of this. They could have at least accepted PayPal payments, so that credit card data would not have been stored on their servers.

-----


It is interesting to me that many of the posts contained here, not to mention the article itself, spends so much time and effort on debating good vs bad passwords and improved password techniques when the hackers themselves didn't even need a password to obtain all this information in the first place.

Discussing quality of passwords is only relevant in the context of a system that has no other weak points that can be easier/faster exploited than the passwords themselves.

And even then...key loggers, trojans, phishing, script injection etc...they can all capture passwords of arbitrary length and complexity...

I would be curious to see statistics around break-in where the root cause was actually hackers reverse engineering/guessing an unknown password vs obtained access using a password they obtained otherwise or simply bypassed any username/password mechanisms altogether. I have a feeling the latter two would comprise 99+%.

-----


Regardless of the root causes for how passwords get hacked, having a unique and strong password for each account helps limit the damage for nearly all forms of password theft to just one account. The following post (mine) describes the 9 most common forms of password theft as well as protection and damage control for each:

http://www.filterjoe.com/2010/05/14/how-attackers-steal-pass...

You'll see that if you simply do the following, it will stop or at least limit the damage from the most common forms of password theft:

"Use a password manager to assign unique, random 15 character passwords for all accounts, protecting them with a strong master password."

-----


Does anyone know the password restrictions that Sony music used? Like minimum password length and what special characters were allowed?

-----


Very interesting, but lets also consider the source. I personally have a hierarchy of passwords. Things that are important (e.g. banking) gets unique random passwords. Sites like sonypictures.com that I'll probably never use again and don't care if someone gets access to... they get one of my old passwords that I'll remember.

-----


>> "And if the passwords were salted before the hash is applied? Well, more than a third of the passwords were easily found in a common dictionary so it’s just a matter of having the compute power to brute force them and repeat the salt plus hash process."

Well, assuming that you know the hash, because if you don't, things don't get that easy. I'm assuming systems that salt passwords don't store the salt in a row of their database, but with security, or the lack of it, everything seems to be possible.

-----


Where else would you store the salt?

If you're storing it in a place more secure than where you're storing the password hashes, why not store the password hashes there in the first place?

-----


If the salt is the same for all the users you can have it on the source code that hashes the passwords. Not always being SQL injected means having the back-end code leaked.

-----


That defeats the purpose. The whole point is to have a unique salt per user to force the cracker to spend time on every password.

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: