Slashdot Mirror
NYT Password Security Discussion Overlooks Universal Logins
A recent NYT piece explores the never-ending quest for password-based security, to which reader climenole responds with a snippet from ReadWriteWeb that argues it's time to think more seriously about life beyond passwords, at least beyond keeping a long list of individual login/password pairs:
"These protective measures don't go very far, according to the New York Times, because hackers can get ahold of passwords with software that remotely tracks keystrokes, or by tricking users into typing them in. The story touches on a range of issues around the problem, but neglects to mention the obvious: the march toward a centralized login for multiple sites."
In matters of security, the most important tool anyone can have is common sense. Phishing scams, "dangerous" websites, revealing important information willy nilly...all things that cause major problems in the digital world, and all things that could be almost completely avoided if common sense was more prevalent.
Granted, some people "don't know any better"...but that's why you educate those types of people if you know any.
Living With a Nerd
Why don't you hunter2s shut the hunter2 up!
Always a great idea. Windows registry anyone?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I'll admit, I feel torn when I see that OpenID login. Increase my chance of giving someone access to everything? Or make it simple?
In the end I compromise and simply use a variation of one password for those.
There is the problem with centralized logins: the masses don't consider the first part, and only think of the convenience.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
So they just need one password to access all your profiles?
Unless it was not actually your password for all those sites, but the password to a database (only available locally) that contained the password to those sites, I don't see how that's a solution. Actually, I thought the main problem with passwords was that people already used the same password for all their sites.
We are all God's parents.
The trouble with OpenID is it's still one identity that you're carting around, allowing yourself to be tracked across multiple sites.
A better solution is just to use a password manager (KeepassX, Last Pass, etc.) which lets you manage your own multiple identities in a secure way. This gives you the convenience of a single sign-on with the security of a distinct identity for every site where you want it.
Great, so I'll be able to use Facebook Connect to login to my bank accounts soon????? Count me in!!!!!!
NY Times knows what they are doing while supporting this call for centralized password management and identity system. They serve the powers that be on their quest to even greater power. I agree with their point - increasing the so called safety - but on the other hand I am a bit worried about having a few people in charge of the identities of eventually entire population. Almighty government and rich corporations will certainly be willing to help us with our identities.
I like OpenID, but if you couple it with a three factor authentication, whether it be a smartcard, or biometric, or whatever.. that's when it becomes useful.
Too bad the current implementation doesn't support it. Sadly, World of Warcraft and Starcraft II do.
Go figure.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I am very happy with KeePassX. It stores your passwords and related information in an encrypted file. You can copy a password out of it to paste into a web-form. This means
The obvious problem is that you need a password to open the KeePassX file. However, this at least does not go via browser, and I can manage to remember one complex, very secure password.
KeePassX is open-source, available for Windows/Mac/Linux, and compatible across all of these. Nice solution - give it a try!
p.s. I have no relation to the project - just a happy user!
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What has always amazed me about authenication for access-control via a computer is the widespread use of "passwords". We treat computer access-control like it's a brand new problem, however it's really just the same old access-control problem that we solved at least 4000 years ago.
Why don't we have passwords to get into our houses? Why don't we have passwords to get into our cars or P.O. boxes or even safe-deposit boxes? Because passwords are a pain in the ass that are inherently insecure because we, as humans, are terrible at remembering arbitrary strings of numbers/letters/symbols. What we are good at remembering - objects/ideas and the words associated with them - make for terrible passwords because they are so darn easy to guess.
The idea of a lock and key is one which we have been using for millenia for security, so why haven't we applied this simple metaphor for electronic access-control. We even have the technology readily available: Public Key Authentication. But for some reason the only place I've ever seen it used is in OpenSSH. In fact, it's considered superior to password authentication in OpenSSH and recommended over a password.
So why not have RSA keys to our email, online banking etc. just like we have keys to our houses, cars etc?
So educate me... How do I use common sense to determine if the site I just logged into actually secures the login information on the backend? Is it stored in clear text, transmitted in clear text, available to everyone in the company? I have no idea what happens to the credentials I just entered. How do I use common sense to determine if Facebook, MySpace, Slashdot, NYT, etc are taking the securing of my personal and login information seriously? Do you read every EULA completely? Would you even know if the company did not follow their EULA? Do you have the resources to sue if they don't?
Common sense tells me that no site is to be trusted implicitly; they are all dangerous.