Ubuntu forums breached - all passwords compromised(ubuntuforums.org)
ubuntuforums.org
Ubuntu forums breached - all passwords compromised
http://ubuntuforums.org/announce.html?t=534261
10 comments
So glad I use a random different password for EVERY account.
Not sure if sarcasm, or you're saying you use the same password on every site.
It wasn't a joke. I create a 60+ character random password for every website. There are many tools available to help you manage your passwords.
I do have an ubuntuforums.org account and I DID use a random password so I WAS glad that I didn't have to rush to change all my passwords.
I do have an ubuntuforums.org account and I DID use a random password so I WAS glad that I didn't have to rush to change all my passwords.
hopefully it's not {password}ubuntuforums.org and {password}google.com ...
You know that's actually a lot (a very large lot) better than having the same password for multiple sites (like for example the common three password security levels strategy).
A bruteforcer might find a hash collision, but it's not likely to find the entire string {password}ubuntuforums.org unless it is actively looking for that string.
Granted ofcourse that all websites you do this on store their passwords securely.. if not then you are right, it is a terrible idea :P
A bruteforcer might find a hash collision, but it's not likely to find the entire string {password}ubuntuforums.org unless it is actively looking for that string.
Granted ofcourse that all websites you do this on store their passwords securely.. if not then you are right, it is a terrible idea :P
The best joke ever.
Well, salted hashed - not exactly "passwords compromised"?
As good as.
$stored = md5(md5($password) + $salt);
That is the simple hash function.
$stored = md5(md5($password) + $salt);
That is the simple hash function.
That would have been standard 10 years ago, but these days, it's not very effective and, unfortunately, it's still a very common scheme. You're better off with:
Or even the trusty old...
Edit: Fixed some typos.
function rHash( $rounds, $data, $salt ) {
$data = $data . $salt;
while( $rounds > 0 ) {
$data = hash( 'tiger160,4', $data );
$rounds--;
}
}
Or even the trusty old...
$stored = crypt( $password, '$2y$14$' . $salt . '$' );
Edit: Fixed some typos.
Confused here. Are you saying that ease of implementation makes it easy to reverse? Or are you agreeing with GP?
Both MD5 and the algorithm are weak. When you can crunch 180 billions of MD5 hashes per second [1] a long password will not save you
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/25-gpus-devour-password-hashes-at-up-to...
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/25-gpus-devour-password-hashes-at-up-to...
Sorry it's easy to reverse.
There are sites you can just go to and they'll crack the passwords for you in no time at all.
Edit: aware of rainbow tables and salts and how hashes work etc etc. They are easy to crack if on password lists which they mostly are these days if you have a shit password which is 90%+ of us. Not only that, the $salt on a good chunk of vbulletin sites from vb2 days is not a strong salt.
Go here to get people to crack passwords for you: http://forum.md5decrypter.co.uk/default.aspx
With respect to the feasibility, it's really easy to do an md5 and you don't just do the whole list, you pick interesting email addresses and start there.
There are sites you can just go to and they'll crack the passwords for you in no time at all.
Edit: aware of rainbow tables and salts and how hashes work etc etc. They are easy to crack if on password lists which they mostly are these days if you have a shit password which is 90%+ of us. Not only that, the $salt on a good chunk of vbulletin sites from vb2 days is not a strong salt.
Go here to get people to crack passwords for you: http://forum.md5decrypter.co.uk/default.aspx
With respect to the feasibility, it's really easy to do an md5 and you don't just do the whole list, you pick interesting email addresses and start there.
The purpose of the salt is to invalidate rainbow tables. With salt, the only way to reverse is to compute all combinations. With advances in GPU, it has become easier for some hash functions, but it easnt' easy to reverse by any measure.
What are these sites which will crack the passwords in no time? Try reversing this:
38b2cf16f7be6a1b33097084bed6a4b0:lsdjfldsjlfds
What are these sites which will crack the passwords in no time? Try reversing this:
38b2cf16f7be6a1b33097084bed6a4b0:lsdjfldsjlfds
oclhashcat-plus [1] claims to perform 6.9 billion MD5 hashes per second on an AMD hd6990 ($900 from Amazon).
Assuming the password is eight lower case letters, you can try them all in (26^8)/(6.9 billion) = 30 seconds.
Even if the password is eight alphanumeric digits, you can try them all in ((26+26+10)^8)/(6.9 billion) = 8.7 hours.
Now admittedly, many users will have more than 8 characters in their passwords, and 8 hours to crack a single account isn't that bad I mean it could be a lot worse, and it's only a forum so no exactly critical infrastructure. However, by the standards of security systems (where we're used to hearing that brute force attacks will take longer than the age of the universe) MD5 is pretty weak.
[1] http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat-plus/
Assuming the password is eight lower case letters, you can try them all in (26^8)/(6.9 billion) = 30 seconds.
Even if the password is eight alphanumeric digits, you can try them all in ((26+26+10)^8)/(6.9 billion) = 8.7 hours.
Now admittedly, many users will have more than 8 characters in their passwords, and 8 hours to crack a single account isn't that bad I mean it could be a lot worse, and it's only a forum so no exactly critical infrastructure. However, by the standards of security systems (where we're used to hearing that brute force attacks will take longer than the age of the universe) MD5 is pretty weak.
[1] http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat-plus/
[deleted]
no, it's not easy to reverse. though if the password was a common one or occurs in a dictionary, it is easier to reverse. and no, they cannot be cracked in 'no time'.
If by "no time", you mean minutes or hours on a typical laptop - hashcat will rip through vbulletin hashes almost as fast as to goes through plain MD5.
A journalist[1] got 45% of a list of 17,000 MD5 hashed passwords on his MacBook Air (just CPU hashing no GPU) - in 90 seconds. It's entirely justifiable to expect vbulletin hashes to fall no slower than twice that time.
Even using random passwords - which means "non-dictionary words (including guessable letter/symbol substitution and leading/trailing digits)" - you still need to be aware of the abilities of modern password cracking tools.
Hashcat with a modern gaming video card can do almost 7billion MD5 hashes per second, which'll search the entire 7char password space in something like 90- seconds - or the entire 9char password space in under 9 days. 11 characters gets you up to a _probably_ acceptable 194 years - against a single GPU attacker, the hashcat code will run on 128GPUs at once, which drops that to only ~18months against a well funded attacker (probably "criminal enterprise" level well funded, well short of "nation state" level).
With the Apple password breach - you'd be foolish to not assume criminals could muster hundreds of GPUs to crack passwords that'd give them working iTunes accounts (you give me a couple of tens of thousands of active credit card linked iTunes accounts, and I could think of many ways to turn that into many hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue for some unscrupulous app developer.) I'm hoping Apples passwords were more securely hashed than salted MD5, but if you were using a less than 10 char password, I'd be changing it immedialtely. Even less that 12 chars might not be safe in a 12 month timeframe...
But you aren't going to remember 11char random passwords anyway, so use a tool (1Password/Lastpass/Keypass/etc) and then there's no point _not_ using 16 or 20 or 25char or longer passwords.
Anything less than 9 random chars pretty much _can_ be cracked "in no time" - any valuable passwords less than 12 chars should be considered "weak".
1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/03/how-i-became-a-passw...
A journalist[1] got 45% of a list of 17,000 MD5 hashed passwords on his MacBook Air (just CPU hashing no GPU) - in 90 seconds. It's entirely justifiable to expect vbulletin hashes to fall no slower than twice that time.
Even using random passwords - which means "non-dictionary words (including guessable letter/symbol substitution and leading/trailing digits)" - you still need to be aware of the abilities of modern password cracking tools.
Hashcat with a modern gaming video card can do almost 7billion MD5 hashes per second, which'll search the entire 7char password space in something like 90- seconds - or the entire 9char password space in under 9 days. 11 characters gets you up to a _probably_ acceptable 194 years - against a single GPU attacker, the hashcat code will run on 128GPUs at once, which drops that to only ~18months against a well funded attacker (probably "criminal enterprise" level well funded, well short of "nation state" level).
With the Apple password breach - you'd be foolish to not assume criminals could muster hundreds of GPUs to crack passwords that'd give them working iTunes accounts (you give me a couple of tens of thousands of active credit card linked iTunes accounts, and I could think of many ways to turn that into many hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue for some unscrupulous app developer.) I'm hoping Apples passwords were more securely hashed than salted MD5, but if you were using a less than 10 char password, I'd be changing it immedialtely. Even less that 12 chars might not be safe in a 12 month timeframe...
But you aren't going to remember 11char random passwords anyway, so use a tool (1Password/Lastpass/Keypass/etc) and then there's no point _not_ using 16 or 20 or 25char or longer passwords.
Anything less than 9 random chars pretty much _can_ be cracked "in no time" - any valuable passwords less than 12 chars should be considered "weak".
1. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/03/how-i-became-a-passw...
If it's on a password list.
Or its less than 8chars against an attacker with a single laptop, or 10 chars against an attacker with a modern GPU, or 12 chars against a criminal gang with access to a few hundred GPUs, and I suspect you want at least 15 or 16 chars to feel reasonably future-proof against a nation-state level attacker, and I'm guessing 20chars is enough to ensure the NSA gets out the $5 wrench instead of powering up the supercluster to crack your password.
Hashcat is _fast_. It's unlikely the NSA is many of orders of magnitude faster though. I'm happy enough with my 25 random char passwords generated and stored in 1Password.
Hashcat is _fast_. It's unlikely the NSA is many of orders of magnitude faster though. I'm happy enough with my 25 random char passwords generated and stored in 1Password.
As I said when I previously commented. I find it pretty ironic that these kind of breaches could have been avoided by simply creating a whitelist for their admin panel. This isn't rocket science. The majority of breaches of these size that keep occurring are password reuse, or open admin panels (bruteforce attacks). Who needs a vulnerability when an attacker can simply look up the Administrators on databases they already have?
Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6078588
its a forum.people simply asking their doubts. why they were hacking these sites.. I can't figure it out exactly..
Email addresses + passwords + possibly other things as well.
Many people reuse the same email and password on other services/websites, so this is pretty valuable and sensitive information.
Many people reuse the same email and password on other services/websites, so this is pretty valuable and sensitive information.
Assholes who just like kicking anthills, assholes who seek to get peoples' accounts for profit, and assholes who like kicking anthills for profit.
People use the same passwords for multiple things. If they have passwords for one site they can try it for multiple websites.
emails + password re-usage = profit
I hope they used something sensible like bcrypt for encryption instead of MD5 which is too easy to crack these days.
As far as I remember they were running vBulletin, which uses salted md5.
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum/vbulletin-4/vbulletin-4...
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum/vbulletin-4/vbulletin-4...
Usually it is the password itself that is attacked, not the hashing algorithm. Many people use weak passwords and it is not that hard to use dictionary attacks against them.
Dictionary attacks against salted passwords hashed with something like bcrypt take way more time, weak password or not (and yet a weak password is by definition weak)
It's not encryption, it's hashing. Also, I don't see how MD5 is easy to crack.
MD5 is so fast on GPUs, you can do some pretty ridiculous dictionary attacks in a matter of minutes (like trying every combination of words that has ever been written in a book or posted online - using google's n-gram corpus for example). Then you have plenty of time to try letter substitutions (3 for e), combinations such as word + number + word, etc.
This doesn't apply of course, if your password is a long string of random characters.
Post an md5 hash of your password and you'll see ;)
The easiest and fastest way is to google it.
this is why I always use a memorable low-entropy password for forums and high-entropy from emails.
any unimportant site that demands a high security password (or low-entropy with silly rules) get put into my keypass.
any unimportant site that demands a high security password (or low-entropy with silly rules) get put into my keypass.
note to myself: don't use primary mail account for website registrations
I switched to using a few registration-specific emails after getting my own domain: [email protected] for really dodgy sites or sites I suspect will generate a bunch of crap periodical emails, and [email protected] for the sites I have a little more faith in.
It allows for much easier filtering of my email as well: I only get the emails I care for in my inbox.
It allows for much easier filtering of my email as well: I only get the emails I care for in my inbox.
I tend to use things like “[email protected]”. That way I can also see who gave my account details away when spam appears.
I use [email protected], since I don't use catch all and don't want to create a new e-mail for each registration. Most e-mail providers will ignore the +sitename part and send it to your inbox.