13,000 Passwords, Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce, Porn Sites 149
The Daily Dot reports that yesterday a "group claiming affiliation with the loose hacker collective Anonymous released a document containing approximately 13,000 username-and-password combinations along with credit card numbers and expiration dates." Most of the sites listed are distinctly NSFW, among other places, but the list includes some of the largest retailers, too, notably Amazon and Wal-Mart.
Hope the PSN games gives out are better this time (Score:1)
Last ones you needed 3D to really get into them, few have 3D sets. I have 3D and bored fast with my selections.
Probably malware (Score:1)
As indicated in the article, this is probably due to malware. The list of sites affected is large while the number of released account details is small. Malware usually doesn't even need to keylog anymore, it can just fetch passwords from the browser password store.
With this in mind, changing your password now will likely not have a major effect (unless you are on the list). Since most people don't have the malware, and those that do will probably still have it when they update their account. Just wait a bi
Re: (Score:1)
Haha, nice try anon, but you're not tricking me into giving you more time to mess with my porn accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there, and it's disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you mentally link porn accounts with disgusting. Makes one wonder just what kind of porn you're into.
Re: (Score:2)
porn website, making a mess... know what I mean? Wink-wink, nudge-nudge?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what's disgusting about it? Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
Re: (Score:1)
Ew. I saw what you did there. Clean that up already.
Re:Probably malware (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
It could have been a small subset of a larger leak. Perhaps 13,000 out of millions that just happen to have the same seed values so they could be cracked easier. Of course then someone would have had to try those 13,000 against some of the top 100 web sites in the world but that should have left their fingerprints in logs all over the world.
yep. I provide security to some ofthe listed sites (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the listed sites have far more than 13,000 registered users, so access to the member database of just ONE of the sites would have yielded a much larger dump.
Also, some of the sites store only a properly salted, modern hash of the password, so there's almost no way to get passwords from the sites' servers.
It's pretty clear the hack is in the client side. We may have a look to see of the logs go back far enough to tell us which browser version, OS, and toolbars or addons those members were using.
Source - I designed the authentication and authorization systems for some of those sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Some of it is probably just stuff from simple phishing sites. People are dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty clear the hack is in the client side.
The list of sites alone is clear enough on that, even if you know nothing about them. Someone just had a little lolz with the botnet he owns anyways. TFA advise is totally bogus: They don't post the list of sites to advise people to check their accounts, they do it because it's their excuse for posting a list of x-rated stuff on a non-x-rated site. Pure sensationalism.
We may have a look to see of the logs go back far enough to tell us which browser version, OS, and toolbars or addons those members were using.
Or which desktop dancing nude woman they installed, or old version of flash player they use, or any other of a thousand possible problems.
Mos
Re: (Score:3)
those are key derivation, not for passwords, compl (Score:4, Informative)
Both brypt and scrypt would PROBABLY work, especially bcrypt, but they're designed for a different use. What you want for password storage is confidence that if the bad guy gets F(plaintext,salt), (the hash) they can't derive the plaintext. It's a one-way trap door - you can compute the hash from the plaintext password, but not the other way around. You do not care about any aspects of the output, other than that it can't be used to infer the input (and that it has a guaranteed reasonable maximum length).
For a key derivation function, it's ALL about the output. You're trying to create output that has particular attributes, such as pseudo- random bits, long length, and bonus points if they length can be extended to go on forever.
Key derivation algorithms sometimes work okay as hashes (for password storage), but almost by accident. That's not what they're designed for. To achieve the very different goals of KDAs, they tend to be much more complex, and therefore much more likely to contain subtle undiscovered weaknesses. I'd rather use something designed for the job at hand. I wouldn't, however, say someone is WRONG to use bcrypt for the purpose. If a student turned in a project that used bcrypt for password storage, I wouldn't mark down their grade. It's just not my personal preference.
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens, I'm trying to make a good KDA right now at work, for very specific interpretations of the word 'good'.
I may be done in a year or two.
interesting. Good luck (Score:2)
Interesting. That must be quite challenging. Good luck with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, not really? You want a well-optimized function to turn a password into a very big unpredictable number in a way that's computationally complex, and that's precisely what KDFs are made to do. The entire crux of your argument against such use seems to boil down to "but they sometimes let you specify how big a number you want", as if this added complexity and risk somehow massively outweighed that created by rolling your own slow crappy little alternative.
no, no, and no (Score:2)
> really? You want a well-optimized function to turn a password into a very big unpredictable number in a way that's computationally complex
You want the hash algorithm to be SLOW, not "well optimized"
You don't care about turning it into an unpredictable number.
You don't want it to be computationally complex. In fact you sometimes enforce O(1) time, you don't want a longer or different password to take longer to hash, because that facilitates timing attacks.
"Rolling your own slow, crappy"? Like I mentio
Re: (Score:2)
You want the hash algorithm to be SLOW, not "well optimized" ... You don't want it to be computationally complex.
How do you make an algorithm that's slow without being computationally complex? Writing it all in PHP doesn't count.
The algorithm has to be slow because it's a lot of work. Your implementation has to be fast to maximise the security benefit of using it in the first place.
You don't care about turning it into an unpredictable number.
What else do I want a hash function to return?
In fact you sometimes enforce O(1) time, you don't want a longer or different password to take longer to hash, because that facilitates timing attacks.
Pad your inputs and use constant time comparison functions, kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up "computational complexity" sometime. A computationally complex algorithm is one that gets much slower as the input gets longer. For small inputs, low-complexity algorithm can be, and probably will be much slower than a high a complexity algorithm.
For password hashing, you want the very lowest possible complexity - constant time. Low complexity, constant time, doesn't mean fast; it means that the time and space required is the same for any legal input. If it's slow for all inputs, that's low co
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I used "computationally complex" to mean "takes a lot of steps to complete". You and your "words mean stuff", stop evading the point.
Why is a KDF like PBKDF2, bcrypt or scrypt, a poorer option for password storage than rolling your own? Please use words which mean stuff.
Didn't say it's stupider than stupid. (Score:2)
> Why is a KDF like PBKDF2, bcrypt or scrypt, a poorer option for password storage than rolling your own?
Rolling your own is stupid. I never said using a good KDF was worse than rolling your own algorithm of unknown quality and unknown behavior.
In fact, I said bcrypt specifically is acceptable, that I wouldn't take points off your grade for using bcrypt. A better choice is a properly vetted hash that's designed as a hash, such as SHA256. Using a KDF as a hash is like using a butter knife as a screwdri
Re: (Score:2)
A better choice is a properly vetted hash that's designed as a hash, such as SHA256
... which you then need to, at a minimum, apply salting and key stretching to. Good work, you just rewrote most of PBKDF2, just without the peer review, sane defaults, and for most people, probably in a language where the function call overhead exceeds the cost of the hashing.
Using a KDF as a hash is like using a butter knife as a screwdriver - it gets the job done, and professionals normally use the tool designed for the job rather than substituting.
Hashes are not designed for password storage, that's the entire reason we're having this conversation in the first place. People use KDF's for password storage because that's what they're made for. Anyone who uses a plain old hash h
Re: (Score:2)
> a minimum, apply salting and key stretching to.
It's not being used as a key. Key stretching would be pointless. You stretch to get a longer key if your goal is to derive a strong key - a Key Derivation Function. Password hashes aren't used as xryptographic keys. They're stored, period. They say "when all you have is a hammer ..."
KDFs are for key derivation. That's why they're called key derivation functions. How is that hard to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not being used as a key. Key stretching would be pointless. You stretch to get a longer key if your goal is to derive a strong key
You want a strong key! Key stretching isn't just about making a physically longer key, it's about making a stronger one, such as by iterating your hash function a million times.
KDFs are for key derivation. That's why they're called key derivation functions. How is that hard to understand.
This is not in question. What is in question is why it's not exactly what you'd want out of a password hashing function - what difference does it make whether you're going to pass it to AES or to a comparison function?
I'm aware of that. PHP's kinda stupid (Score:3)
I am aware of that. PHP's password_hash is kind of stupid, not really a good example of best practices for secure systems. Given that PHP was designed for non-programmers, though it _might_ be a net benefit, if people use password_hash rather than plaintext or MySQL PASSWORD().
maybe just silly language, not silly security (Score:2)
I had to take another look because I remembered I had decided it was silly, but I didn't remember WHY I decided it was silly. I just took another quick glance, and noticed two things. There may be another, larger, issue I noticed last time and didn't notice this time. The two I noticed this time are language silliness, rather than security silliness.
First, it's the same as crypt($p,makesalt($alg)). Redundant language bloat. PHP has more duplicate functions than C has functions in total. In Perl, C,
Re: (Score:2)
You created a 10,000X increase in the work factor for brute force attacks.
If you had just hashed over the salt and password once, encrypted the result and kept the key private, you would have a 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 increase in the work factor.
Relying on low integer multiples of work factors seems like a poor solution to me.
Re: yep. I provide security to some ofthe listed s (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are going to do your own round counts, there are better ways to make it so you can't use hardware to attack your system. One trivial way with hashes is to xor the 1st byte with 0xaa on the 12th round. That alone means anyone building hardware or a GPU approach needs to take that odd step into account and that should about double the work needed by a GPU using today's techniques for optimisation. Another thing that works is to use a different table. For example MD5 uses an internal table that is something like 256*sine((0..255)/256.0). A simple swap of two bytes somewhere in the table means it is incompatible with off the shelf solutions and should be the same strength. There is a risk that doing this will cryptographically weaken the hash. For example if you use the XOR trick too early or too often in the rounds, you end up forcing bits to a known state and that makes it much weaker much like messing with S-boxes in DES does and for the same reasons. Moving around values in large tables tends to be safe as does some conditional byte manipulation in later rounds assuming you are doing more than the standard count. A great way to find out what doesn't work is write a md5 like function with 32 bits and just a few rounds. That can show lots of tweaks are very bad ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Download link? (Score:4, Interesting)
The worst part about them being somewhat vague about which sites are compromised (amazon.com? .uk? .eu? .mars? .SetiAlphaV?) is i need to download the list now to check if my username, password and especially credit card number is on there and doing so potentially makes me a criminal. I'm not going to cancel my credit card on the off chance.
When this kind of things go down a news source should show ONLY the usernames so at least people have a hint that they need to cancel their credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
When this kind of things go down a news source should show ONLY the usernames so at least people have a hint that they need to cancel their credit cards.
Since in many cases the username is the users email address, many people would not want the world to know that their password to pleasebangmywife.com was compromised.... Especially not their wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
A guy goes into a 7-11 in Detroit and robs the place, taking $37.50 and a carton of Kool menthols after shooting the clerk twice in the chest. What is the skin color of the robber?
Black or Asian, there are not any white people left in Detroit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Purple, because he's choking on the handful of menthols he just took.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely few if any of the major retailers are compromised. In fact, I'd say it's probably NONE of the sites have been compromised at all. This is probably nothing more than a list of people infected with a particular piece of malware which has extracted their passwords. The broad range of sites, both retail and adult-themed, seem to bear this out. The malware was probably just harvesting passwords with a keylogger or had extracted them from the browser.
You can generally tell when a breach occurs wit
What am I missing here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How does this stunt make the world a better place? I just don't like online vigilantism. I also hate Guy Fawkes masks.
And remember, these are not "hackers", they are "security researchers".
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "Anonymous" (Score:1)
There is no group "Anonymous". It was just the handle given to people that didn't log in to 4chan. It's like Slashdot's "Anonymous Coward". Some of the 4chan users took to talking about themselves as if they were a group and the media picked up on this and ran with it. The media and random people began attributing characteristics to this imaginary group, like "hacktivism." and "lulz". But the reality is that there is no Anonymous at all. Anyone telling you the group has some particular aspect or chara
Is the word "and" copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
13,000 Passwords, Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce, Porn Sites
Replacing the word "and" with commas pointless, annoying.
Re:Is the word "and" copyrighted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, now, there's only so much width to the printed page for that headline, so if we can save a few letters, we can get the larger font out!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
13 and 000 Passwords and Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce and Porn Sites
fixed it!
Re: (Score:2)
There's no space between "13," and "000". Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. It continues to mystify me that Slashdot thinks it's a newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to be the only one in the room who managed not to get the joke?
List removed (Score:5, Informative)
The list that was posted has apparently been removed [ghostbin.com] (if you can get to the site, which seems to be under heavy traffic with people looking for it). Furthermore:
Malware explains the odd collection of websites, relatively small number of accounts, and supposedly-plaintext passwords. So anyone affected who changes their password will just have that new password picked up unless they've exorcised their computer.
xx,000 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When you write comparisons like this you need to start with the smaller numbers at the beginning otherwise the last ones seem less important.
Fake, clickbait scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Took me less then 5 minutes to figure out this is a click bait scam using collections of older password leaks and money for clicks URL referers. And the 'news' are eating it raw, generating fear and helping it spread. Which is exactly how this scam was designed to work.
Yeah , this is really Sticking It To The Man (Score:3, Insightful)
Not.
Just fuck over 13K people who've done neither you nor anyone else any harm why don't you, you sorry little teenage dickheads. True hackers used to have either a moral or a technological purpose. Now its just a bunch of children vying for bragging rights on 4chan and screw anyone who gets hurt.
The leaks are old according to DataBreaches.Net (Score:4, Informative)
DataBreaches.Net is carrying an article saying that the leaks are nothing new.
http://www.databreaches.net/verifying-leaks-uncovers-fake-leaks/
"Posted by @Cyber_War_News to Pastebin today:
Today has been interesting, to say the least.
Skipping all the bullshit lets get right to the main stinky shit.
Anonymous twitter user @AnonymousGlobo announced earlier today this:
https://twitter.com/AnonymousGlobo/status/547426305151860736
https://twitter.com/AnonymousGlobo/status/548537460691857408
Now after working with data leaks for years now it became clearly obvious to me that this was fake. why?
because real leaks do not get combined, real leaks often have a common format, the targets attacked have accounts leaked daily from phishing and other simple methods."
[more snipped]
amazon and two-step authentication (Score:1)
why doesn't amazon support two-step authentication yet? it's ridiculous. my twitter account seems to have more security than the site I spend actual money on.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they figure that by the time you get through the second step you'll have reconsidered buying a blender that plays "margaritaville" while it blends.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:48 hours ago Microsoft XBox downed by hackers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep telling those idiots to put their godamn network above the sea level but they just won't listen!
Cloadflare prevents them from taking it down. CIA. (Score:1)
You can, given a budget that's a pettance for Microsoft, prevent the attackers from taking you down. The three aspects of security are CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. Giving up one of those aspects is silly.
Cloudflare and F5 provide excellent protections against even extremely large flooding-type attacks, and Prolexic also operates in this space.
Re: (Score:3)
And ya im pissed, i have had my debit card used 3 times in the last 2 years no don't tell me i should be using a CC i don't want to pay the extortion fees they charge not going to happen..
There are plenty of credit cards out there that have no annual fees. If you pay your bill on time and in full each month, you don't have to pay any interest or other kinds of fees. If you can't manage to remember to pay your bill on time, you can pre-pay your credit card. You might have other reasons to avoid the general advice of using credit cards over debit cards, but "extortion fees" isn't really a valid reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some debit cards will check for authorisation every single time you make a transaction (Visa Electron, Mastercard's Maestro) so that it is really impossible to overspend ever. Limitations are it doesn't work with a few stuff like highway tolls, or for a gas pump without a human cashier you need as much cash at the bank as what the max serving of gas or diesel fuel costs.
In my country they're typically given to kids, students etc. (it's a bit more costly to the banks and payment system companies because of a
Re: This is MY suggestion on how to start to fix t (Score:5, Informative)
Just don't spend more money than you have...
Easier said than done if you're always broke before the next payday. And no, that scenario doesn't automatically mean you're a lazy or that you squander your money. Quite the opposite, it generally means you work 60-80hr weeks in retail or some other minimum wage (or less) industry. When the shit-box car that takes you to work dies a CC is normally the only way it can be revived/replaced.
The vast majority of the "working poor" know it's a financial trap when they get the card, but sometimes in life deliberately walking into a trap is the best option you have, thankfully I haven't been in that position for over 20yrs now.
Re: (Score:2)
And Someone pays for CC thift and that someone is You and me with much higher prices/taxes for everything.
Taxes and store prices have nothing to do with CC theft, the money is recouped by the bank purely from the interest rates.
However what I think you are trying to say is that; - the "working poor" are the people who end up paying interest because they can't afford to keep the CC balance at zero, they can't "just say no" to the CC debt because they also can't afford not to fix the car that takes them to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also get 1-3% cash back so the higher prices that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
4chan is over there --->>
Cards are safer than cash. (Score:2)
Re:Cards are safer than cash. (Score:4, Informative)
Dependency: Of course the people who can't afford to keep their CC balance at zero end up paying for my peace of mind via increased interest rates. Ultimately CC's are an unfair burden on the "working poor" and become "just another bill" when they inevitably hit their limit (been there, done that). The sad fact is that if everyone at every point in their life could afford to keep the balance at zero nobody would pay interest and CCs would not exist.
That last sentence is false and shows you don't fully understand what you're discussing. The merchant is charged a fee, usually a small percentage of the transaction, each time you use your credit card. Even if you never personally pay interest because you pay in full each month, the bank issuing the credit card is making money from your use of that card.
Incidentally, this is also why some small, local, mom-and-pop stores won't accept a credit card unless your total purchase exceeds a certain amount. The fee they must pay isn't worthwhile to them if the transaction is too small. Larger stores are better able to absorb it and just consider it a cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of passing harsher laws, maybe we should require that you (and people like you) should be only allowed to use the internet under the supervision of a caretaker.
Of course, if you seriously advocate that people take responsibility for their networks, their equipment, and their decisions and realize the part they play in enabling the problems they complain about, you'll be accused of "blaming the victim".
Still, unlike the harsher laws that vary by jurisdiction (of which some have no extradition treaties), this actually stands a chance of working. On a hostile network like the Internet, nothing other than hardening the targets is going to actually improve security.
Re: (Score:1)
Dang, man, you're really worried - did you get one of the CCs that still charges you the first $50 for fraud? Might try one with a $0 fraud promise.
Or is it something worse? Did you use your real email address for that furry porn site, and now it might have leaked? Sucks to be you, man.
Re: (Score:2)
And what would the URL for that furry porn site be, by any chance?
I need to know, just so... eh, so I don't click on it by mistake. Yes, that's it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There is stupid and then, there is aggressively stupid. There are only 3 reasons to use debit cards in preference to credit cards:
1. Lower pricing (ARCO gas stations).
2. Can't get a credit card because of bad or non-existent credit history.
3. Stupidity.
Which are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hello friend! You seem confused. Slashdot does not have an exclusively American readership. People from other countries post and read these comments, too, and you've just called many million people outside the US "aggressively stupid" for using debit cards in preference to credit cards.
Plenty of other countries have embraced electronic transactions and made them work, in real time, without fees or surcharges or significant security risks. In my country, the majority of transactions are carried out via debit
Re: (Score:2)
mush = much
sum = some
there = their
ya = yes
im = I'm
You're also missing a lot of capital letters especially when writing "i" and you're also lacking ponctuation everywhere.
According to my rules, you're now banned from posting comments on the Internet for 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't it be both?
Re: (Score:3)