phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20130219010346.GB22713@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:03:46 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 01:50:00AM +0100, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I guess that more accounts are getting compromised via leaks of
entire databases (or large portions of them) than via sniffing/MITM.

On a per incident basis (rather than per account), it may be different.

Alexander