lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:50:00 +0100
From: Patrick Mylund Nielsen <patrick@...rickmylund.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

>> That attackers are compromising servers and sniffing passwords over the
>> wire, waiting for re-authentications, rather than just grabbing the
>> database.

> Both of these things (and many others) are happening.  It is non-obvious which
is more common.

My bad for speaking in absolutes. Of course nothing is. Can we agree that a
COPY TO STDOUT of a users table does more damage (and is easier to perform)
with less risk of being caught/stopped in time than does network MITM, and
that based on virtually all of the compromises that have become
(semi-)public, assuming that the former is the more common isn't completely
unreasonable?


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:38:31AM +0100, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:
> > That attackers are compromising servers and sniffing passwords over the
> > wire, waiting for re-authentications, rather than just grabbing the
> > database.
>
> Both of these things (and many others) are happening.  It is non-obvious
> which is more common.
>
> Alexander
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists