Slashdot Mirror


Learning From Gawker's Failure

Gunkerty Jeb writes "The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users, not to mention the breach in trust that may well be impossible to regain. Users are demanding that they be allowed to delete their accounts immediately, and beyond implementing such a mechanism, it is likely that Gawker systems will have to be rebuilt from the ground up to avoid future hacks. So, what is to be learned from this perfect storm of bluster and bravado?"

236 comments

  1. Apostrophe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nice use of the apostrophe on a plural form.

    1. Re:Apostrophe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An angry guide to the apostrophe.

      Where do people 'learn' to use apostrophes for plural's? I don't even...

    2. Re:Apostrophe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: very imaginative use of the word "disenfranchise."

    3. Re:Apostrophe's by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      They obviou'sly work for the greengrocer's guild.

    4. Re:Apostrophe's by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      What the hell is insightful about being a grammar Nazi? I don't have objections to pointing out the problem, but modding it insightful? Gosh. The towering intellect and insight required to make this stunning observation is just overwhelming to mere mortals.

    5. Re:Apostrophe's by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Nice use of the apostrophe on a plural form.

      Has it been fixed? Because I don't see what you're writing about. Or are you referring to apostrophe in "Gawker's"? In American English, an organization, business, etc. is usually considered singular: "IBM has released its annual report." "Xerox's profits are down." "The NRA opposes gun-control legislation."

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re:Apostrophe's by maxume · · Score: 2

      Userseresss's'ss''''sss.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Apostrophe's by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Userseresss's'ss''''sss.

      OMG. Apparently I'm so accustomed to the "Here comes an 'S'" usage I didn't even see it.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:Apostrophe's by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Userseresss's'ss''''sss.

      OMG. Apparently I'm so accustomed to the "Here comes an 'S'" usage I didn't even see it.

      OMG, I was so annoyed that I missed it I forgot how to use nested quotes . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:Apostrophe's by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Taco, meet Bob.

    10. Re:Apostrophe's by jvonk · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that comic, and have shared it many times. However, I do deviate from its dogma when it comes to acronyms/initialisms: I pluralize those by using an apostrophe to delimit the acronym/initialism and indicate the plural "s" is not to be considered part of the abbreviated neologism in question.

      I believe the approach to be rather straightforward, and certainly no less confusing than the outstanding its/it's bug in English (that issue seems to have been marked "wontfix").

    11. Re:Apostrophe's by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Two lesson's learned, right there! You can't expect to treat individual's like peasant's and have no reaction. Eventually the reader's get vengeful.

      Many thank's, Gunkerty Jeb!

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    12. Re:Apostrophe's by maxume · · Score: 1

      OMG. I don't think your name is Ruby, so maybe cut back a little on those.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Apostrophe's by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I pluralize those by using an apostrophe to delimit the acronym/initialism and indicate the plural "s" is not to be considered part of the abbreviated neologism in question.

      The New York Times does that, too, but if you do that you can confuse the issue, and it's easily remedied by capitalizuing the acronym. "IBM's CEOs are paid well."

      "The CEOs are paid well"
      "The CEOs' pay is huge"
      "The CEO is paid well"
      "The CEO's pay is huge"

      If you treat an acronym as a contraction, how would you denote a possessive plural? CEO's'? Seems clumsy to me. Plus, are there any contractions that are nouns? All the contractions I can think of are verb/adverb combinations -- doesn't, wouldn't, don't, isn't, shouldn't, can't, etc.

      certainly no less confusing than the outstanding its/it's bug in English

      It's not a bug.

      The man named Bill caught his ball
      The woman named sally caught her ball
      The dog named Spot caught its ball

      No apostrophe.

      Bill's ball is red
      Sally's ball is blue
      Spot's ball is green

      Apostrophe.

    14. Re:Apostrophe's by Warui+Kami · · Score: 1

      Don't forget simple subject/verb combinations: I'm, you're, they're, he's, she's, 'twas, etc.

      I also like more convoluted contractions: I'd've, 'twasn't, etc.

      Or "o'", and "ma'am."

    15. Re:Apostrophe's by jvonk · · Score: 1
      I don't believe that there is any good, viable solution to the acronym/initialism situation.

      Capitalization is no panacea, especially now that marketing people have started to include lowercase letters when creating acronyms (eg. Verizon FiOS). Both the apostrophe approach and the capitalization approach have drawbacks in that they can cause confusion. I prefer the apostrophe approach because any ambiguity can usually be resolved by parsing the sentence.

      To wit:
      "The CEO's pay is huge" (Likely a possessive, but context should disambiguate)
      "The CEO's went on a pointless junket" (no ambiguity: a possessive wouldn't parse)

      However, I understand that the apostrophe approach can be confusing in certain boundary conditions. My preferred solution would be to introduce an orthogonal approach to indicate pluralization for acronyms/initialisms. Out of choice, I would use the backslash character, but I am not married to the particular implementation.

      Eg. "The CEO\s went on a pointless junket"

      Of course there is exactly zero chance of this system ever becoming prevalent.

      It's not a bug.

      I must demur: I still am convinced that it's/its is a bug in English. Normal possessives are denoted by an apostrophe-s, as you pointed out. Whoever set the convention in English decided that a contraction had stronger claim to the use of the apostrophe and then just decided to "resolve" the possessive issue for 'it' by pretending it didn't exist. Hence, "it's" is a contraction for "it is" rather than the possessive. (BTW, here's an example of a pronoun/verb contraction rather than a verb/adverb)

      If it had been up to me, I would have awarded the apostrophe to the possessive, because I feel the possessive has stronger claim than the contraction. Also, if we defined "its" as the contraction for "it is", then there is no real weirdness introduced because pluralizing "it" makes no sense (it is singular by definition). Oh well.

  2. What's to be learned? by gklinger · · Score: 1

    One lesson that comes to mind is that you shouldn't refer to your website's participants as "peasants".

    1. Re:What's to be learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if you dare a rival group to "bring it on", keep in mind that they might actually do so.

    2. Re:What's to be learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that the "4Chan" like groups need to be hunted down and exterminated.

    3. Re:What's to be learned? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      So says an Anonymous Coward.

    4. Re:What's to be learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, don't be Nick Denton, Brian Lam or any other editor on Gizmodo team.

    5. Re:What's to be learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've learned that I don't really need to have an ID to comment on these sites, or that if they require an ID I don't really need to comment.

  3. These lessons have been applied by spun · · Score: 1

    And from what I hear, there is no way these clueless, juvenile script kiddies could EVER hack Slashdot.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:These lessons have been applied by XorNand · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot is open source. Gawker's code is not.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    2. Re:These lessons have been applied by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      So it's easier to hack?

      How is Slashdot being opensource reassuring? I certainly cannot fix the code on the server where it is running.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:These lessons have been applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ha! Shows what you know n00b! I hacked Anonymous Coward's account in no time flat!

    4. Re:These lessons have been applied by spun · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:These lessons have been applied by zellfaze · · Score: 1

      No, but if you point it out it will get fixed. Having many eyes on a piece of code encourages it to be fixed faster.

    6. Re:These lessons have been applied by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being open does not make Slashdot easier to hack, because it's written in Perl and so even access to the source code does not make it possible for an attacker to understand what it's doing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:These lessons have been applied by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      What whoosh? That hack was from like 10 years ago... about the time the alleged BSD backdoor was allegedly inserted. Coincidence? I think not!

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    8. Re:These lessons have been applied by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Being open does not make Slashdot easier to hack, because it's written in Perl and so even access to the source code does not make it possible for an attacker to understand what it's doing.

      I have not read a truthier statement all day. Explosion at the punctuation factory.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    9. Re:These lessons have been applied by spun · · Score: 1

      My original post was a (lame) joke. The first lesson in the linked article is "don't poke the bear" so I was poking the bear.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:These lessons have been applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point you're missing about this particular aspect of Open Source is third parties who know what they are doing can and often do look at the code for other projects. Just because you cannot is irrelevant in this matter. In contrast, examining code for closed source, proprietary software is, in a general sense, not permissible.

    11. Re:These lessons have been applied by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      And from what I hear, there is no way these clueless, juvenile script kiddies could EVER hack Slashdot.

      How you talk.

      BTW, after successfully tricking CommodoreTaco into running my PostScan 2010 script (to check his posts for virii) I now have the entire suite, user data and cheat codes to dozens of 1980's C64 games.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:These lessons have been applied by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      Who whooshes the whooshers? :-)

      Yes, I know. My post was also a (lame) attempt at a joke. :-)

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    13. Re:These lessons have been applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who used to write (and decipher) Perl all day, I wholeheartedly agree. Whitespace is easier to understand most of the time. Malbolge is maybe a little more difficult, depending on who wrote it.

    14. Re:These lessons have been applied by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Quis whooshdiet ipsos whooshdes?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    15. Re:These lessons have been applied by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like that 6 year old x server bug? Lets be honest here folks: The whole "lots of eyes makes bugs shallow" bit is a case of magical thinking, no different than "we have XYZ which makes us secure" (insert complex password, firewall, particular OS for XYZ).

      The reason the whole "bugs & eyes" bit is magical thinking is because everyone assumes someone else is checking it and because the vast majority are simply unqualified to know a vulnerability even if they were staring at the code. Bugs today are usually in the form of buffer overflows or privilege escalation, which depend on complex interactions failing in one manner or another for them to work. Unless you know and understand all the ways a particular piece of code is gonna interact you can stare at it until the cows come home and not find the bugs.

      I figured the six year old X server bug would have finally laid this bit of magical thinking to rest, apparently not. Can't we just agree that real security comes from a best practices, top to bottom least privileges design and execution, and not on "Oh I'm sure someone with leet skillz is checking all the boring bits for me to ensure my safety".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:These lessons have been applied by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Funny

      My biggest gripe on the other hand is that my browsers don't understand the html that Slashdot's Perl code produces...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    17. Re:These lessons have been applied by geekoid · · Score: 2

      IT's not magical thing it work. This has been shown many times. The issue is with implementation. Locks are worthless if they aren't locked.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:These lessons have been applied by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

      There is another theory which states that this has already happened.(HHGTG)

      Cmdr Taco hacked Slashdot long long ago. Once upon a time this was a sensible discussion board running software written in C and with a love of beautiful art discussions.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    19. Re:These lessons have been applied by spun · · Score: 1

      Remember when we had all those polite and insightful conversations about religion and politics? Man, those were the days, huh?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:These lessons have been applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that it wouldn't help find complex bugs like the X server one, if ANYBODY with ANY security skill knew so much as "gawkers using DES for their passwords", that would be enough to raise a lot of attention to it.

      It's not like theres some crazy advanced bug at play here. Well I mean,t here probably is, but I don't think anyone faults them for that.

      We fault them for storing passwords in a way that is outright dangerous.

    21. Re:These lessons have been applied by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      Locks are useless if you have 100 contractors one one of them makes a wall out of drywall that was meant to be concrete.

      Looking at the discussions that go back and forth on some open source projects everyone tends to be so self interested in their opinion or their part of the project it is hardly likely that the guy who wrote a the RSS feed parser or the guy that wrote the WYSIWYG comment editor have any clue what the guy who wrote the password login system did.

      Hell for that matter you look at SF how many of the projects are written and maintained by ONE PERSON. I bet hardly any end users do a code audit on those programs before using them.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    22. Re:These lessons have been applied by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's more like explaining the joke for those who aren't aware that /. was hacked in the past.

    23. Re:These lessons have been applied by spun · · Score: 1

      It's a whooshfest here today, ladies and gentlemen, the missed references are flying fast and furious from all sides!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    24. Re:These lessons have been applied by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      Holy Run-On Sentence, Batman!

    25. Re:These lessons have been applied by natophonic · · Score: 1

      I blame the coarsening of popular culture. Back in those days, all the music on the radio was well-written with thoughtful and meaningful lyrics, rather unlike the music of today, which is just a load of fucken crap.

  4. Description of hack? by DJ+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about a detailed description of how the hack was performed? What hole was breached? That would be the first place to begin "learning".

    Until that's published there's really nothing to study.

    1. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about a brief description of what Gawker is?

    2. Re:Description of hack? by gklinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While it leaves many (mostly technical) questions unanswered, I found the this article to be an interesting and informative description of what happened.

    3. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they are imbarised to do so. I'm one of the ones that asked them to delete my account actually. If I can't trust a company to keep my data private when they say they will do so, then our relationship is over.

    4. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was supposed to say embarrassed, you should probably kill yourself right now.

    5. Re:Description of hack? by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1, Redundant
      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    6. Re:Description of hack? by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Someone who stares stupidly.....

    7. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the imbarisment!!!

    8. Re:Description of hack? by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      If he did that, any further grammatical errors would be everted.

    9. Re:Description of hack? by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      My point exactly! WTF was this awful website anyway?

      We can learn from the Wikipedia that it was:
      Gawker is a blog based in New York City that bills itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip" and focuses on celebrities and the media industry.

      So, good, I was RIGHT in not giving two shits about this hack or the dozens of shitheads who bothered to create logins on a fucking useless blog site of nonsense and shitheadery(a word I had to make up to convey my lack of concern for those asshat users and their moronic blog hosts).

      Let the douchery commence!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    10. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here ya go: http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/12/13/the-lessons-of-gawkers-security-mess/

      This post was made 9 minutes later than this other post that has the exact same link. Mods, this is what "Redundant" is for.

    11. Re:Description of hack? by heckler95 · · Score: 1

      Gawker Media is a company with a number of sites including Gizmodo and Lifehacker, both of which (I would guess) are pretty popular with the Slashdot crowd.

    12. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this darn troll named "Anonymous Coward"? Maybe you could tell him to "learn to spell", but "kill yourself"? Over a spelling error? What the hell? And why is this Anonymous Coward person taking credit for my posts now too?

    13. Re:Description of hack? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      Actually, Gawker owns and manages several websites: deadspin (sports), kotaku (computer gaming), jezebel (feminism, and other girly stuff), io9 (sci-fi) gizmodo (consumer electronics), lifehacker (computers), and jalopnik (cars). All of the accounts on those websites have been compromised, to some degree.

    14. Re:Description of hack? by oracleguy01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is a really good article. If they are using very out of date Linux kernels there are probably a lot of other out of date software on their systems. That combined with the fact that they don't have any internal password strength policy and are using cryptographically broken encryption shows they don't seem to have any competent server admins and web developers.

      There is a lesson to learn here and it is a simple one: Don't be stupid.

      Given their demonstrated lack of competence in handling this whole situation I don't have a ton of faith that they can competently check their systems for other damage and any modifications made by Gnosis.

    15. Re:Description of hack? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      they don't seem to have any competent server admins and web developers.

      Always with the blaming the admins and web developers. It's only 95% of them that give the other 5% a bad name, you know.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Description of hack? by yincrash · · Score: 2

      coding horror has a good writeup

    17. Re:Description of hack? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The attacker's release notes, hosted by Jeff Atwood : http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/gawker-hack-release-notes.html

    18. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye, good article, but clearly "Gnosis" are a bunch of complete asshats. What the hell is with their "herp derp" banner? I mean what is this, the 40s? Why are we still hating on people with Downs Syndrome? Low, LOW class, and worse in my opinion than developers referring to their users as peasants. That's par for the course. :) My rant is unrelated to the story here, I know, but I'm just saying.

    19. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post was made 9 minutes later than this other post [slashdot.org] that has the exact same link. Mods, this is what "Redundant" is for.

      And this post was made regarding moderation of another post. Mods, this is what "Off-topic" is for.

    20. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a moran!

    21. Re:Description of hack? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 2

      Just because the kernel version is 2.6.18 (in particular, don't know about 2.6.21) doesn't mean its out of date. 2.6.18 is the kernel used by Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and its derivatives, and Red Hat's version gets regular patches.

      --
      End of Line.
    22. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and are using cryptographically broken encryption shows they don't seem to have any competent server admins and web developers.

      Even if they were using an algorithm that wasn't broken long ago, their choice of a symmetric cipher shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of encryption.

      There is zero reason why a site like that would need to recover user passwords. Even if they'd used a state-of-the-art algorithm like AES, they could still be undone by key management. I'm actually surprised Gnosis didn't grab the DES key to decrypt passwords, which I'd guess means that the production web servers weren't compromised. In any case, a cryptographic hash algorithm is much more appropriate for this use case. This is a basic design decision that they got wrong.

    23. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grab the torrent and you can see much of what was done.

      I comment on LH about system and user security and privacy all the time - I'm TheFu over there.
      Anyway, what can be learned from this hack?

      For websites:
      - Don't be arrogant
      - Know that you WILL be hacked, it is just a matter of time. Have a plan for when it happens and practice your response.
      - Don't be stupid with your password authentication methods. A 13 character, weak hash, isn't a good idea. Use a non-trivial seed and 30+ character output from a modern hash. It would be good to store the hash type in the DB so upgrades to a newer hash can be more easily performed without impacting users directly.
      - Hash most user data in this way, including email addresses or other user data that shouldn't be leaked easily.
      - Lock accounts after just a few failed login attempts.
      - Have paid outside security consultants review your design, review your infrastructure, and review your code. Security is hard. Don't expect it to be easy. Thousands of things all need to work perfectly for a system to be secure. Just 1 tiny mistake, just one time can be THE failure that matters.

      For end users:
      - Use a different password for every login
      - Use at least a 30 character password AND use a password manager like KeePass, KeePassX, or LastPass
      - If you can, use a different email alias for each website you use. If you can't, setup a few "tiered" email addresses - have important emails go to 1 email that you protect carefully. Have financial data go to a diff email account. Lastly, have social websites go to a diff account. Lots of the Gawker users have seen attempts with the compromised email address used to login to other popular web services. If they had the same email-password pair, their accounts were taken over. The least that happened was the accounts were locked. Using different email addresses for different services would have prevented this from happening.

    24. Re:Description of hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the accounts on those websites have been compromised, to some degree.

      Here's the official notice from Gawker: (I received this in my email on Monday the 13th)

      This weekend we discovered that Gawker Media's servers were compromised,
      resulting in a security breach at Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Gawker, Jezebel,
      io9, Jalopnik, Kotaku, Deadspin, and Fleshbot
      . As a result, the user name
      and password associated with your comment account were released on the
      internet. If you're a commenter on any of our sites, you probably have
      several questions.

      We understand how important trust is on the internet, and we're deeply
      sorry for and embarrassed about this breach of security. Right now we
      are working around the clock to improve security moving forward. We're
      also committed to communicating openly and frequently with you to make
      sure you understand what has happened, how it may or may not affect you,
      and what we're doing to fix things.

      This is what you should do immediately: Try to change your password in
      the Gawker Media Commenting System. If you used your Gawker Media
      password on any other web site, you should change the password on those
      sites as well, particularly if you used the same username or email with
      that site. To be safe, however, you should change the password on those
      accounts whether or not you were using the same username.

      We're continually updating an FAQ (http://lifehac.kr/eUBjVf) with more
      information and will continue to do so in the coming days and weeks.

      Gawker Media

      You are receiving this email because your email
      address was associated with a Gawker Media user
      account. We are using this list only for the
      purpose of sending you this important notification.

    25. Re:Description of hack? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      You're right. I forgot good ole' Fleshbot (porn)

  5. oh puleeze by Essequemodeia · · Score: 1

    Thinking any password sacrosanct on this here interwebs is ridiculous. The self-satisfied Gawker-enthusiast is the very type of person who should know better.

  6. Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I left Jalopnik over two years ago. It had very poor editorial control, and displayed the vast chasm between reputable automotive journalism in mags like Car & Driver and Road & Track and the interwebz. It had become Ray Wert's bully pulpit, and the commentariat IQ over there dropped down to double digits pretty quickly.


    IO9 and others really were not much better. And the problem really came down to not being able to drown out the idiots. I attribute Slashdot's long term success to the mod system and the whole way it handles contributions. It works. And the Gawker crap blog engine was badly coded, anybody who used it could see that. So it isn't a shock that it got 0wn3d. Amateur blog engine should be a sign of overall poor design and security.

    1. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to hang around on consumerist, but when it left Gawker, it got worse.

    2. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left Jalopnik over two years ago. It had very poor editorial control, and displayed the vast chasm between reputable automotive journalism in mags like Car & Driver and Road & Track and the interwebz. It had become Ray Wert's bully pulpit, and the commentariat IQ over there dropped down to double digits pretty quickly.

      Ditto. I dig Clunkbucket, but nobody reads it.

      Biggest dealbreaker for me and any Gawker Media property was the commenting system. Forced pagination, few comments per page, forced reverse chronological order, and slow-to-load/page Javascript required to view any comments at all. That's like four dealbreakers at once. I stopped reading, and about a week or two later, stopped missing it.

    3. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ (AKA TTAC) is my current favourite auto rag, filled with TheRegister-esque satire dripping with sarcasm and some descriptive analogies worthy of PA's Jerry Holkins.

      Here's a decent writing sample that sticks in my memory: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/01/comparison-2008-dodge-charger-v6-vs-1993-toyota-camry/

      Maybe I didn't notice it as a kid since I had the propensity to simply ignore all things politick, but C&D and some of the other auto mags seem to have very right-wing editorials these days, that kind of give the thing a different flavour. Anyway, don't really find them as intellectually stimulating anymore, but I guess they're mostly for the pictures. :-P

    4. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I stuck it out on Jalopnik until a couple months ago. Left because half the stories were cross posted from IO9 or Gizmodo, if I wanted to read about sci-fi vehicles I'd be on IO9, or hell a website that knows what the hell they are talking about.

      Gawker Media's editorial standards went to hell over the last year or so.

      Funny, the day that the WoW 4.0 patch went live Kotaku had a post about this big 4.0 patch that was coming soon, early next month probably! And it's going to be so cool!
      I wrote the guy and said "way to be late, it came out today, servers are up already", he called me an asshole.

    5. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by eltonito · · Score: 1

      It's nice to know I wasn't alone. Wert canned the real writers and brought in a bunch of talentless interns. From a business standpoint that's AOK, but they tried to use established Jalopnik references that they didn't fully understand and came off looking like clowns. "Look at me, I'm driving a Volvamino and doing double nickels on the dime!"

      And you are dead-on - the decline in the quality of commentariat was directly proportional to the quality of the writing. In this case, the shift in both was nearly instantaneous. The last straw for me was a series of kiss-ass "volley*" reviews that trampled the spirit of the site I originally enjoyed.

      * Volley review = A review where every negative comment is balanced with a positive comment, as not to entirely offend the manufacturer who may or may not be providing you the car. Prior to the Wert era, Jalopnik had a trashed such reviews in other publications.

    6. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I used to go to Jalopnik for... and doubly-so, now that I found out that Mr Martin is still actively writing! Thanks for TTAC!

    7. Re:Jalopnik sucked anyhow... by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      I feel you.

      > reputable automotive journalism in mags like Car & Driver and Road & Track

      I don't feel you. I stopped reading those rags, even though they became free online years ago. A decade ago I tried to read them online and they were either paywalled, just used teaser snippets or didn't have anything worthwhile then. That continued for years till I stopped caring in the least what they had done. They lost me permanently. Like Jalopnik with their endless silly try-so-hard neologistic "carpocalypse,"---or is that autoblog, is there a difference between the two, really, come on---with those magazines you have to stoop over the bad sophomoric writing and brainless _endless_ mentions and _variations_ of "four-bangers, windmill, tranny, ponies" and whatnot. Is decent automotive journalism so hard to make? No. Is an alternative to such bad journalism boring? No. I found a great alternative from all mentioned above elsewhere! Thank gad for that. And it's not a European publication.

      I have yet to find one for motorcycle quality coverage though, dang!!!

      BTW, on the random instance I am at the doctors I'll pick one of these, proceed to skip 4 or 5 introductory paragraphs and see if the writer has YET stopped pontificating, masturbating, salivating, PADDING and reached the subject at hand.

      BTW what is with the common practice of describing engines thusly: The Subawerke MRX 3TI has a 265 hp 500 foots-pounds 2.5-liter DOHC 33.5 valve varivalvetiempolift turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. ? I personally like to know the number of cylinders first and foremost but typically I hae to wade through all the other schlock to get it, and then start to make sense in my head of what I'm dealing with and how that configuration will typically respond like and whether then that torque is adequate. WTF. Am I alone?

  7. I know what I learned by paiute · · Score: 1

    I learned to always use the password "123456". Herd immunity.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I know what I learned by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have several passwords I use. Sites that require accounts for participation get one that I don't care if it gets out in the wild. No big loss. People posting as me is mildly amusing.

      I have another password for systems I'm in charge of, that function like those I participate in in the first example. It would suck if that got out. Those systems are few, and you'd have to personally know me to know what they were.

      I have secure passwords for each of the highly sensitive accounts (banks and such) that are not shared between accounts. IF one of those gets out, I'm screwed for that one institution, but nowhere else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:I know what I learned by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm talking about, I think the fact that a large portion of gawker's users used common passwords that are part of every cracker's dictionary says more about the users than the platform.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    3. Re:I know what I learned by clintp · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm talking about, I think the fact that a large portion of gawker's users used common passwords that are part of every cracker's dictionary says more about the users than the platform.

      Or the attitude of the users towards the system.

      For the vast majority, hoi polloi, unwashed masses, commoners: "Gawker? Just use a throwaway password. Like I give two shits if it's hacked." If I were inclined to comment on a Gawker site -- I'm really not -- I'd use a junk password as well.

      The *admins* or featured users being the only real dumbasses here.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
  8. Gawker Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scum loving snoops don't like being snooped on themselves.

  9. Salt your hashes by iammani · · Score: 3, Informative

    See title

    1. Re:Salt your hashes by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Salting your hashes only protects you from rainbow tables (and then only if your hash isn't already in a rainbow table). The salt is included in the hash, so I can see if your password is a weak password like "password" or "PASSWORD" or... exactly what Gawker warned against.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Salt your hashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep seeing this comment, but has anyone established that the passwords were even hashed?

      It seems more likely that they were storing them plaintext than the hashes were brute-forced after the theft.

    3. Re:Salt your hashes by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I have read, the passwords were hashed but only with DES. Furthermore, there was salting and no password complexity requirement because rainbow tables were able to reveal a medley of Gawker passwords. Gawker's reaction to the first signs of a break in a month ago (complete indifference) was pretty nuts. It's user base is its biggest asset; the disrespect they show their users was ridiculous.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:Salt your hashes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      the passwords were hashed but only with DES

      DES is an encryption algorithm, not a hashing algorithm. The difference is that encryption is reversible. If you use encryption as weak as single DES then someone can crack it pretty quickly and then generate a list of unencrypted passwords. If the passwords are hashed, even with a weak algorithm, then they can generate a list of possible passwords, but if someone has used the same password in two places then you won't necessarily get the same one that they used in the other place.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Salt your hashes by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Yes, use bcrypt and up the work factor.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    6. Re:Salt your hashes by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      DES is the standard unix hash algorithm (like ed is the standard unix text editor).

      Here's the first paragraph of "man crypt"

      crypt is the password encryption function. It is based on the Data Encryption Standard algorithm with variations intended (among other things) to discourage use of hardware implementations of a key search.

      of course you would have to be borderline retarded to actually use it now.

    7. Re:Salt your hashes by mlts · · Score: 1

      Salting provides effective protection when combined with a number of rounds. Ideally, the client should do a number of rounds, then hand the 256 bit hash over to the server which will toss in the salt and do a few rounds. The reason for this is that trying to brute force guess a typeable password will become difficult. An additional bonus is that a client trying to guess a user's password is slowed down by an authentication mechanism before the guess goes to the machine.

      What would be ideal is a standard authentication library set that a lot of people scrutinize for errors which is intended at large web sites to keep track of users. Something that makes it easy for programmers to store user information the right way (passwords hashed with a salt and a number of rounds, all other user info encrypted somehow.)

  10. With big words come big responsibility by Jonboy+X · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

    That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    1. Re:With big words come big responsibility by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I think they were looking for "disenchanted".

    2. Re:With big words come big responsibility by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

      That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

      disenfranchise
      verb \dis-in-fran-chz\
      Definition of DISENFRANCHISE
      transitive verb
      : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

    3. Re:With big words come big responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been reduced to magical dust?

    4. Re:With big words come big responsibility by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

      That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

      disenfranchise verb \dis-in-fran-chz\ Definition of DISENFRANCHISE transitive verb : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

      franchise (noun)

      2 b. a constitutional or statutory right or pirvilege; especially the right to vote

      Bold mine, italics not.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:With big words come big responsibility by vux984 · · Score: 1

      They've been reduced to magical dust?

      The magical attachment they had to gawker has been.

    6. Re:With big words come big responsibility by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      no where in there does it say it is exclusively the right to vote. In fact it says "or of some privilege" and "a legal right". Neither of these are specific to voting.

  11. Passwords are a failure by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The big lesson here is not that you should never get breached, or that you should use some super-secure password, or that you should use a different password on every site (you should).

    No, the real lesson is that passwords themselves are faulty. No one is going to select and memorize a strong password for every website they use. They're going to either re-use passwords, or choose weak passwords, or write their passwords down (or use a password manager).

    None of these are good answers. The expectation is that users are going to choose strong passwords, that they will never re-use passwords, that hashes (even with salt) are an effective way to protect passwords, and that users will never be tricked into revealing their password.

    It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Users aren't careful with passwords, and why would we expect them to be - 99.9% of the time they get away with it. Humans are bad at evaluating the risk of things that are low frequency but high impact.

    The other thing that's bullshit is password reset. It doesn't make any sense: how can someone who forgot their password remember "security questions" that are actually secure. No, 99 times out of 100 these systems use some crap like "Where were you born", which is pretty damn trivial to find out for any attacker. My brokerage account has a secure password that I only use there, but resetting the password requires only my username, SSN, ZIP code, and last name. And there are far, far more people who know that stuff than people who know my password.

    It's time to get serious about replacing passwords. That's the lesson here.

    1. Re:Passwords are a failure by bl4nk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "security questions" weakness is exactly how Sarah Palin's email account was broken into.

      If they're not required for logging in I always fill the security question answers with a long string of random characters, effectively making them unusable for password recovery.

    2. Re:Passwords are a failure by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      As I see it, the best thing you can get is some fortified password manager. I'm not sure how secure the manager of Firefox is. After all, JS in Firefox can do pretty powerful things, you can do a plugins and whatnot, so I can imagine some JS exploit, either through JS engine failure, or making a plugin that claims to be something else than it actually is (e.g. Flash video downloader, or whatnot; just wait for the password manager to fill in the field and your evil script does an Ajax push in the background). But of course this is mere speculation. I'm not really familiar with Firefox internals.

    3. Re:Passwords are a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends what you are trying to protect. In this case, passwords were only protecting somebody's ability to post a comment, not launch nuclear missiles.

    4. Re:Passwords are a failure by asvravi · · Score: 1

      My brokerage account has a secure password that I only use there, but resetting the password requires only my username, SSN, ZIP code, and last name.

      Well I just checked and your brokerage account doesn't seem to have much funds in it anyway.. so relax. By the way, your new password is "0wned". Dont mention it.

    5. Re:Passwords are a failure by horza · · Score: 1

      Why is a password manager not a good answer? I use KeePassX and generate a random string for each and every login. It's even easier than trying to remember more than one password. Simply copy and paste the password each time (also defeating any keylogger you may have installed).

      Phillip.

    6. Re:Passwords are a failure by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, 99 times out of 100 these systems use some crap like "Where were you born", which is pretty damn trivial to find out for any attacker.

      Only if you're stupid enough to use the most obvious answer. In my case I could use the name of the city like pretty much everyone else - but I use something else that is technically correct, easily remembered by me, and non-obvious to the random hacker. (I.E. something that can't be found by searching public records and isn't something like 'a hospital'.)

    7. Re:Passwords are a failure by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      ...resetting the password requires only my username, SSN, ZIP code, and last name. And there are far, far more people who know that stuff than people who know my password.

      Use a unique random string as a username.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Passwords are a failure by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      Why is a password manager not a good answer?

      Allegedly, it's the same reason why you don't put stickys on the monitor. However, by the time someone has enough resources to crack into your encrypted password store, your other passwords would probably be compromised by now.

      A slightly better option is generating a password constructed from a hash, which basically means you need to carry around a mobile device at all times if you use computers at different places.

    9. Re:Passwords are a failure by zn0k · · Score: 1

      Any application that could log your keystrokes can also monitor your clipboard. And - while we're at it - take screenshots periodically and record the coordinates of mouse clicks, potentially defeating on screen keyboards.

    10. Re:Passwords are a failure by Mr.+Jerry · · Score: 1

      No one is going to select and memorize a strong password for every website they use.

      Its actualy not hard to do, just requires a little bit of effort on the part of the user to "change over" their whole password system.

      1. Start with a "complex" base for a password, something with various character types that you can remember -- along the lines of the first letters of a phrase. (My Birthday Is In December. => m3iz1N12.)

      2. Then for each application specific password append, preprend or insert (in a systematic way that again, you'll remember later on) something unique to that service. Probably best to stick to a character limit for easy recall. Maybe even include a numeral for its "version number" (explained below)
      eg. Facebook might be m3iz1N12. + F4Ce + 10

      Result: you have a unique strong password for each service you subscribe to, with a systematic method for remembering it if you forget (base + your indentifier scheme) without having to rely on security questions.

      Then when it comes time to update your password, which you should be doing periodically anyway, you can increment the "version number" while keeping your password similar to but yet still "strong"

      Of course this is a moot point if the service gets breached, but it shouldn't stop you from having good passwords of your own.

    11. Re:Passwords are a failure by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      This is why I like the "make your own security question" option some sites have. Things like, "who was your favorite teacher in High School", "What was the model of the first car you drove?", etc. are a lot harder for the average person to find out and tend to be easy to remember. I never liked the "what is your favorite book?" type question since that answer is mutable over time.

    12. Re:Passwords are a failure by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Careful - they don't always tell you they're required to login until afterwards.

      Best to keep a copy of the string of gibberish encrypted on a private machine in case you need it. That's the best solution for all passwords anyway, despite OP's claim that using password managers to save strong passwords is a bad idea.

    13. Re:Passwords are a failure by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I use and recommend PasswordSafe, but it's not without its drawbacks. If you rely on it then you need your database to use the websites (e.g. there's no way I could tell you my bank password 'cause I don't even know it); so if you don't have your DB available you can't do anything. To keep it available you need to worry about synchronizing the file across multiple computers (something I doubt at least PasswordSafe does if you change both files at once) and stuff like that.

    14. Re:Passwords are a failure by maxume · · Score: 1

      What is the security question answer you have stored in your password safe?

      The nice thing about that one is that you can misread other questions to be asking that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Passwords are a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do that too but use a convention that matches the question....

      For instance the word "four"

      Mothers maiden name?
      fourname

      First pet?
      fourpet

      Highschool you graduated from?
      fourschool

      I use that variation but with my own word..... Always works but I have different answers to the questions. Depending on how the question is formed even the same topic has different answers.... For instance "Favorite pet" fourpet "favorite animal" fouranimal.

      Been doing this since the 90's......

    16. Re:Passwords are a failure by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You can ahve strong passwords, and not nede to memorize one.

      Not what I use, but here is an example:

      Last three intiais of a middle name, the age you lost your virginity and the day of the week you where born and then add the sitenane backords with numbers:

      So John Doe on Slashdot could have a password:
      Doe16Wedt0dh5415

      Obviously, pick you own decision points.

      The site should hash them as an added layer.
      Also alerting a user when unusually activity happens is useful as well. Like when google alerted me someone from Korea had accessed my account.

      What can we replace them with that can't be equally compromised?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Passwords are a failure by balbus000 · · Score: 1

      When I am allowed to choose my own question and answer, I obfuscate it.

      For example, a question like "Can oxen lick other rodents?" would be asking for a color: "Can Oxen Lick Other Rodents?"

      And the answer would be something like "y3110w".

      For the predetermined questions, it is usually easy to come up with answers you can remember but don't really relate to the question being asked as well.

    18. Re:Passwords are a failure by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      The reason I don't use one is that you could lose your password database. I'd rather remember a bunch of passwords than rely on always having that file. Even backing it up I don't feel safe.

    19. Re:Passwords are a failure by ukemike · · Score: 1

      There have been more than a few cases where I wanted to participate in some online discussion. (for instance I need to know how to replace a part on a Tamiya RC car for my son) When I signed up for an "account" on that forum I got an email with my username and password in plaintext!

      The lesson I took away from those experiences and the gawker story is this: The negative consequences of someone stealing my ID on some forum about RC cars are basically nil, especially if my profile on that forum doesn't really identify me. So I use the same useless totally insecure throwaway password for these sorts of accounts. It's easy for me to remember and I don't care if it gets stolen or revealed. Hell it's been emailed in plaintext a half a dozen times. Had I ever used gawker I would have used that throwaway passoword, and it's exposure to the whole world wouldn't have worried me for a moment.

      For accounts that matter I use a different and entirely more robust scheme for passwords. Now if a gawker disaster happened to gmail, facebook, or my bank, the damage would be limited to that site but could still be BAD. I hope gmail and my bank do a better job than gawker.

      The security question issue is a bit different. They're supposed to be easy to remember, but they nearly provide an equivalent level of access as the login and password. It might be useful to map the questions to different questions. For instance a security question about where you grew up you could always answer as the location of your first job, or even where superman grew up. A question about your pet's name you could answer with your sibling's name. As long as you remember your scheme it works and won't be as obvious to guess

      --
      -- QED
    20. Re:Passwords are a failure by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      My brokerage account requires me to enter that information and select a image from a list of about a hundred or so that I selected upon creating the account. I also must select this image every time I log in. You can't replace a password today completely, but if you're creative you can find ways to enhance security regardless.

    21. Re:Passwords are a failure by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I back it up to a printout that I store in a safety deposit box. That way even if my data and all backups fail, I still have a human readable copy somewhere.

    22. Re:Passwords are a failure by Velorium · · Score: 1

      The issue with password managers are that you then run into the issue of accessing your accounts from different computers which aren't your own.

    23. Re:Passwords are a failure by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That's why I put my password list on Facebook, so I can access it from anywhere.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    24. Re:Passwords are a failure by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, my first car is too well known. Everyone who knows me know it was a "!@#$-POS of a ^&*%!"

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    25. Re:Passwords are a failure by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Password managers with local storage are not a solution since many people now use plenty of devices to access the internet.

      Internet based password managers are basically dependent on the security of the master password; and if I'm going to depend on a singular password, I'd rather use OpenID.

    26. Re:Passwords are a failure by maxume · · Score: 1

      It isn't very convenient to use a password manager with multiple devices, but it isn't that big a deal to spread your managed passwords to several trusted devices, and anyone going to the trouble of a password manager probably isn't so worried about typing passwords into untrusted devices...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    27. Re:Passwords are a failure by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I use something guessable, but largely because I view the 1.1 factor auth that gets used with deepest contempt.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    28. Re:Passwords are a failure by xtracto · · Score: 1

      What I would like to see is the following:

      1. Google/Yahoo/etc account that allows login in ONLY with one time-passwords (like Transaction Authentication Number).
      2. All other web pages that allow to login to your account *only* with OpenID.

      That way you only need to save AND print your TAN list (which is provided to you when you create your account... or one you active the "TAN based login") and then you can login to all the other sites using OpenID.

      That over there would improve security a lot.

      Unfortunately, Google does not even let you produce your own authentication mechanism (it was possible some time ago) due to the GALX value (no Iframe subscripting, no API to "login to google services and then redirect to gmail", etc)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    29. Re:Passwords are a failure by martyros · · Score: 1

      I actually have a good system, inspired by a slashdot post I saw some time ago. I used a password-generating program to make 52 random passwords. Then I printed them in a grid on a credit-card-sized piece of paper. Original is with my "safe documents", a photocopy is "laminated" with scotch tape in my wallet. I have a simple mapping from website name onto the grid which I won't forget. Bam -- instant, strong, almost unique password for any website that suddenly wants a login, without having to remember it or store it anywhere.

      I don't have a gawker account, but if I did, it's (1) unlikely that another site would have the same password, and (2) even more unlikely that if there was a "collision", an attacker would try the one that shared the password.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    30. Re:Passwords are a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always think entropy - how many bits of security do you expect to need?

      Now do the calculation for the passwords you use, how many bits do you get.

      Now do the same calculation with your security answer.

      Oops. Even _with_ your method, you just lowered the amount of security bits to almost nothing.

    31. Re:Passwords are a failure by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      LastPass is pretty good.

      It supports IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari on Windows, Mac and Linux, synchronizing the passwords between them.

      It uses a master password by default, but you can use an on screen keyboard and generate one time master passwords to protect against keyloggers on untrusted machines. You can additionally use Token Grid Authentication for multifactor security (like the copy protection on old games where you had to enter specific stuff from the manual to prove you own the game).

      The premium version ($12 per year) also supports iPhone, Blackberry WinMobile, Android, Symbian, WebOS and Dolphin/Firefox mobile browsers.
      Additionally it can use USB flash drives or a dedicated USB token as an added factor.

      I use long, unique randomly generated passwords for every online account I have (Except my main email account, that has a really long and complicated password that I know. So if all my computers, my backups and the LastPass servers explode, I can still reset every single password :).

      They also recently acquired Xmarks, a browser bookmark/history/settings synchronization service.

      (I'm not affiliated with them, just really like the service.)

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  12. hire the hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Gawker had any sense, they would hire the hackers to do their security.

    1. Re:hire the hackers by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      If Gawker had any sense, they'd hire professional programmers to design their system instead of letting it grow organically from what the "programming guy" originally came up with. Their comment system is THE WORST ever implemented.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  13. Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petard! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Their MO is "Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down".

    This hack couldn't have happened to a bigger bunch of self-involved, arrogant jerks. If there is a balance of justice in the universe, then it just inched another tiny notch towards equilibrium.

    Really, the imperious attitude that is exhibited by the Gawker "editorial" stance is a smug and sarcastic condescension towards the foibles of others.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  14. Gee I don't know - how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't fucking store the original unsalted password in your database? Muppets.

    1. Re:Gee I don't know - how about by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmm... unsalted passwords.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  15. Whoops by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 1

    Consider user's revised to users and disenfranchised revised to discouraged. I'll try to be less of an animal in the future.

  16. Why did they even need passwords? by scrotch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I'm left wondering is why someone should need a username and password to comment on a blog post on their sites. Do they have a reputation system? Does it really prevent spam? Or is it just to gather a list of email addresses that they might sell later? There must be a better way to accomplish the little functionality that their login requirement provides. Especially now that they have to deal with the fact that their login system was not secure.

    1. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      advertising. it causes lots of evil

    2. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by DCFusor · · Score: 1, Informative

      I run a small board, using PHPBB. I require real signons, and yes, it helps prevent spam. The user's email is collected, but I can't see it at all unless they also put it in their profile on purpose. It's actually a pain not to have my user's emails, not because I'd ever sell them (most are both cheapskates and too smart to fall for spam anyway) -- but because sometimes you want to ping on someone who hasn't signed on for a long time (also, to make sure they are real), and the private messaging obviously doesn't work if they don't log on. I can't see their passwords either, they are hashed before going into the database I believe. I don't allow anonymous cowards on my board. Anything someone has to say they can either say with their real name, or somewhere else. This also keeps the post quality higher. No astroturfing. I'm not saying it's hack proof, I really doubt it is. But in my case it seems good enough, and I do keep backups. Since it's a science discussion, there's not much to encourage hacking anyway.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by Karrde712 · · Score: 1

      What I'm left wondering is why someone should need a username and password to comment on a blog post on their sites. Do they have a reputation system? Does it really prevent spam? Or is it just to gather a list of email addresses that they might sell later? There must be a better way to accomplish the little functionality that their login requirement provides. Especially now that they have to deal with the fact that their login system was not secure.

      There are two primary reasons to require logins:
      1) A registration system with a captcha is highly-effective at preventing spam on your blog comments or forum posts.
      2) To a greater or lesser degree, it prevents people from impersonating you. Sure there are ways to trick this (create a username that's one lookalike character off, etc.) but on the whole it makes it easier to recognize who you're talking to.

      --
      You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
    4. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I'm left wondering is why someone should need a username and password to comment on a blog post on their sites. Do they have a reputation system? Does it really prevent spam? Or is it just to gather a list of email addresses that they might sell later? There must be a better way to accomplish the little functionality that their login requirement provides. Especially now that they have to deal with the fact that their login system was not secure.

      As someone that runs a site (not a blog), I can tell you that spammers are a PITA. Not having any registration would've meant the site would have been quickly overrun with spam, and I'd have no way to stop it. For registered users, deleting a user also deletes all of their posts, so the cleanup is somewhat easier. Even with registration and catchpas, I still had problems, so I disallowed self-registration in favor of manually creating new accounts. Slower, yes. But the spam situation is much better since then; I no longer spend hours each day cleaning up the mess.

    5. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by mlts · · Score: 1

      The more info they collect, the more they can sell to advertisers. This is why so many blog places demand so much info.

    6. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, WHY is the login an e-Mail address. Isn't this just a common laziness?

    7. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have a reputation system?
      yes, sort of. there is a star system, either your comment has a star or it doesnt. if it doesn't, it doesnt show up for most people.
      Does it really prevent spam?
      it seems to, as I've rarely seen any real spam in gawker comments, but also leads to groupthink like all other moderation/reputation systems.
      Or is it just to gather a list of email addresses that they might sell later?
      Possible but they haven't sold them yet afaict. Now that they're all leaked, who would pay for the list they can just get off bittorrent? I doubt anyone wants to 'support the artists' in this case.
      There must be a better way to accomplish the little functionality that their login requirement provides.

      There is, and it's called Facebook Connect. They already support it, but it didn't do any good for users like me who already had an account from before they started supporting it.

      Other viable options would be Twitter OAuth, Google Accounts, or OpenID.
      Those are all ready to be implemented today, but long term I still hope someone manages to make a browser plugin or standard feature where you can use an SSH agent to login to websites.

    8. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      1) is not really a reason, you could use a captcha for anonymous comments, like Slashdot.
      2) isn't either; you could allow both. Again, like Slashdot.

    9. Re:Why did they even need passwords? by WeatherServo9 · · Score: 1

      Does it really prevent spam?

      It may! It did for our forums at least. We used to allow anonymous access and started getting a lot of spam. After requiring authentication this dropped significantly. We also modified the registration process to add a captcha. I didn't think this would work as spammers can be a frustratingly crafty bunch, but apparently our forums weren't worth the effort as those two measures reduced the spam to almost none.

  17. Some of us are more fortunate by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, some of us were more fortunate there.

    I was born in the quaint town of P5$+19"797q4. It's lovely in the spring. You should visit. My mother's maidens name was B192zve8p6; an ancient and distinguished family, if you must ask. My first pet was a cat named Ö8z~30+r.vd. We all loved her. And I went to ß8s8h,u:82 memorial school.

    Strangely enough, nobody ever guesses those ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by glodime · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's strange. All I see is ********** for the names of your cat, school, hometown, and mother's maiden name.

    2. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      I do that too, but sometimes it bites you in the ass - my credit card bank, for example, occasionally asks one of those questions in addition to the password.

    3. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      Of course, to pronounce them correctly, I would have to rip out your tongue.

    4. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I had that issue with my bank. They asked for the answers to a bunch of questions when I first created my account for password recovery purposes, so I put in long random strings, but recently they changed to using the "two factor" (yeah right) authentication, so I had to go to my bank to change them.

    5. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, nobody ever guesses those ;)

      Until now.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hunter2

    7. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate when that happens. Earlier today my bank asked me who my first girlfriend was, and I tried "nobody", "none" and finally just left it blank and it told me my account was locked because I used up my attempts. Now I have to go to the blank and explain how I've never had a girlfriend.

    8. Re:Some of us are more fortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like your response was tongue-in-cheek, but seriously - you can enter real dates and names, but they can be any dates and names. At least they won't be able to figure it out just by looking you up on the net. And yes, you'll probably have to write this stuff down in order to use it if necessary (for password recovery, etc), but there are ways to do that securely (Steganos is a good bet).

  18. Gawker's failure? by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Meh, I'd always used Facebook Connect to post comments to their sites. Probably the first mildly useful thing Facebook has done for me.

    So at worst, I probably have my spam email address out there in that torrent. Big deal. It's posted all over the web already (including my personal contact page).

    But really, if anyone was adversely impacted by this, was it Gawker's failure, or their own for trusting some random website with a sensitive password? I don't use my good passwords for any of these "social networking" sites.... I don't care WHAT their reputation or privacy policy says :P

    It's not like CmdrTaco isn't free to break into my /. account and start OMG I LIKE TURTLES HAMSTER HAVOC RULEZ!

    1. Re:Gawker's failure? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      But really, if anyone was adversely impacted by this, was it Gawker's failure, or their own for trusting some random website with a sensitive password?

      Both. The latter doesn't excuse the former.

  19. Salting is merely a good start by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Salting addresses some attacks, but as CPU time becomes cheaper, it becomes increasingly feasible to brute-force even salted hashes. To address this issue, you need key strengthening as well.

    Or, better yet, just use the system designed to store passwords: bcrypt.

    *sigh* Then again, I'm confident that we'll see incompetent web application developers using unsalted MD5 for decades to come. People don't learn from others' mistakes it seems.

    1. Re:Salting is merely a good start by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Then again, I'm confident that we'll see incompetent web application developers using unsalted MD5 for decades to come. People don't learn from others' mistakes it seems.

      Or even cleartext; yes, I have seen this on production websites, and it is unbelievable.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Salting is merely a good start by oracleguy01 · · Score: 1

      Or even cleartext; yes, I have seen this on production websites, and it is unbelievable.

      As have I, a good way to test this is to try and reset your password on said site. If they show you or email you your existing password and not a random new one, you know their security is crap and shouldn't be trusted.

    3. Re:Salting is merely a good start by Chirs · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I've been on sites that will show you your existing password, but only after jumping through many hoops to prove your identity. The fact that they have access to your unencrypted password doesn't necessarily mean that they're using it for identification--it could easily be stored in a back-end database somewhere and used only to show to people that forget it.

    4. Re:Salting is merely a good start by EvanED · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point: it's almost always a bad idea to store the unhashed password, period. The problem isn't so much "they'll send you your password" (though that's bad too) but more "what if their password database is compromised?"

    5. Re:Salting is merely a good start by Anders · · Score: 1

      Or, better yet, just use the system designed to store passwords: bcrypt.

      I recently rejected bcrypt because it seemed to have no way of increasing the verification cost on an existing hash, as would be needed a few years down the road. Was I wrong?

      Also, articles promoting bcrypt often suggest not using SHA-1 because it runs fast in a GPU/FPGA. Can't bcrypt be made faster in a similar way?

    6. Re:Salting is merely a good start by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. Does anyone more knowledgeable know whether that's possible? If you use a conventional hash, you can simply increase the number of iterations as high as you want.

    7. Re:Salting is merely a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleartext. I'm a reseller for a popular domain name registrar and through their reseller system, I can log in and get a list of my customers. I can then drill down to see more detail on each customer, including their PLAIN TEXT PASSWORD.

      Sure, this is handy when someone forgets their password, but I'd rather be able to tell them "Sorry, I can't recover your password, what do you want it reset to?"

    8. Re:Salting is merely a good start by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yes necessarily. If they are recording your password in a way that can be retrieved as plain-text then the possibility exists for a massive breach that will leak all username/password pairs.

      It may be well "secured", but the fact that it exists at all is a problem.

  20. What Gawker should do by GeneralSecretary · · Score: 1

    They should toss out their own lousy system and switch to Wordpress with Disqus for commenting. They should switch to use OpenID instead of passwords. They should at the very least hash passwords not encrypt them.

  21. Strong Bad said it best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want it to be posessive, it's just 'I-T-S.'

    But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I-T-apostrophe-S'.

    Scalawag.

    1. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Neither of which apply to the case in question.

    2. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Epic fail.

      His, hers, its. Those aren't true posessives and don't take apostrophes. Bob's, Sally's, and the computer's are and do.

    3. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they are possessive adjectives. What isn't "true" about them?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    4. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Steve's ball.
      Dog's ball.
      It's ball.

      The problem with grammar nazi attempts to correct people's apostrophe abuse is that hardly anyone explains why "the ball belonging to it" isn't contracted as "the ball belonging to Steve".

    5. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by grubwort · · Score: 1

      Think of "its" as the gender neutral version of "his" and "hers" and everything just magically falls into place.

      You wouldn't use "hi's ball" to mean "the ball belonging to him", so you shouldn't use "it's ball" either.

      At least I hope to god you wouldn't use "hi's ball".

    6. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The Old English genitive is -es; an "e" is what the apostrophe in the possessive form represents. The possessive pronouns "his", "hers", and "its" lost this "e" before the contraction became common-place.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, "its ball" is not equivalent to "dog's ball".

      The ball belonging to Steve is his ball. The ball belonging to Sally is her ball. The ball belonging to Dog is its ball."

      The ball belonging to Steve is Steve's ball. The ball belonging to Sally is Sally's ball. The ball belonging to Dog is Dog's ball."

    8. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 0

      For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
      Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
      Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
      So again, what is not "true" about them?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    9. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Not a thing. Despite the implications of replying, my post didn't attempt to defend such a strange idea.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    10. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't read your reply well, so I find that I was addressing a straw man. But it seems the point stands: They are still true possessives, contra mcgrew who appears to have been taking issue with Scalawag's calling them possessives.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    11. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1
      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    12. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I think it comes down to most people not giving a rats ass about the King's English when posting anything online, because English is a very flexible language that can be correctly intrepreted even when it's horribly mangled. Writing perfect English is something most people realized turns out to be mostly a waste of time in terms of how much meaning one gets across. Plus it gives all the lemon suckers something to bitch about.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    13. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      You still haven't explained why the ball "belonging to dog" is written "dog's ball" but the ball "belonging to it" isn't written "it's ball".

    14. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by treeves · · Score: 1

      This thread is full of dog's balls!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You still haven't explained why the ball "belonging to dog" is written "dog's ball" but the ball "belonging to it" isn't written "it's ball"."

      Yeah, yeah, whatever...

      Now for the really interesting question: Who's on first?

    16. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Written language can convey meaning more precicely than the spoken word, but only if it's used correctly. One would assume a nerd site's denizens would be not only be literate, but would have read a lot of books.

      An example of the ambiguity of the spoken word is a radio commercial for a sex toy shop here in Springfield, Pricilla's. The tag line is "Where fun and fantasy meet." It occurred to me that they may in fact be saying "We're fun and fantasy meat".

      Another example is in my sig.

    17. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If "the ball belonging to it" was "it's ball", then "the ball belonging to him is hi's ball".

      I don't understand why some cand seem to understan this -- it's dirt simple.

    18. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    19. Re:Strong Bad said it best. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      The nominative form of "dog" is "dog". The nominative form of "it" is "it". For regular nouns we form possessive from the nominative by adding "'s". It is therefore logical to expect that "it's dog" means "the dog belonging to it".

      Your explanation doesn't really reveal any understanding. "His" is already not nominative, thus irrelevant to the argument.

      The correct explanation is that personal pronouns have a different genitive/possessive form to regular nouns. "Its" is an exception to a rule; naive grammarians tend not to grasp this, making it difficult for them to explain why it's "its", not "it's". Tits.

  22. The real failure was storing passwords. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

    Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?

    1. Re:The real failure was storing passwords. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      how else do you compare the password with what the user types to see if it's legit? or did you mean in cleartext?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:The real failure was storing passwords. by 1729 · · Score: 1

      Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?

      From what I've read, they didn't store the passwords, only hashes. The passwords that have been released were weak passwords that were easily brute-forced from the hashes.

    3. Re:The real failure was storing passwords. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?

      From what I've read, they didn't store the passwords, only hashes. The passwords that have been released were weak passwords that were easily brute-forced from the hashes.

      I should be more specific. They should have stored salted hashes. Regular hashes are susceptible to rainbow table attacks. Especially since they used an obselete DES encryption.

    4. Re:The real failure was storing passwords. by yincrash · · Score: 1

      one way hashing. compare your stored hash with the hash of what the user entered.

  23. My Favorite Lessson by cdoggyd · · Score: 0

    Don't poke the bear. You have be stupid or cocky to taunt hackers.

    1. Re:My Favorite Lessson by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      I think of it as more like dancing in a rattlesnake pit. It's a funny dance, but it does not last very long.

      I also like to say my scripts are as awesome as a unicorn that shits out Milk Duds.

      Analogies are fun, aren't they!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  24. write passwords down or use a password manager by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Nothing wrong with that. A piece of paper in my wallet is reasonably secure, and I'll notice fairly quickly if it's missing. Especially if I use an algorithmic password.

  25. Single login = single point of failure by Animats · · Score: 2

    This is the trouble with "single login" systems. Now there's a single point of failure.

    Single login requires a trusted organization with a good reputation willing to contractually commit to paying for the damages if they screw up. But look who's in the business: Gawker. Facebook. Microsoft. Google. That's no good.

    If anyone were to do this well, it might be Amazon. Amazon is not an advertising-supported business. They take orders, accept payments, and ship real products. As a major credit card merchant selling physical objects for which they pay real money, they constantly have people trying to steal merchandise from them. So their management has to understand the risks of authentication failures. Amazon has a powerful and well-respected distributed computer infrastructure, which tends to stay up despite problems. So they could probably implement a single login system that could be trusted.

    1. Re:Single login = single point of failure by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then they'd block your account if you tried to login to a website not approved by the US congresspeople.

      OpenID is a much better system - use the provider you trust, or set up your own.

  26. Why mess with 4chan? by stumblingblock · · Score: 1

    Foolish and arrogant to badmouth 4chan, or any other potentially damaging organization, especially if you have an online commodity you wish to protect. Gawker shows itself to be no more mature than 4chan when it does.

  27. Gwaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gwaker was hacked by another punk genius billionaire, who inadvertently invented something or rather and then called all gwakers F* this or or F* that. The manner in which he accomplished this consisted of looking at an existing script kiddie's work and implemented it on gwaker. His genius comes from that fact that one one has ever hacked a gwaker before! the end.

  28. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I really liked yesterday where IO9 was making fun of their users for using scf-fi names for passwords.

    You know from the data that was leaked from farking IO9 because their masters blew the security.

  29. Even email they sent to everyone looked fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Even the email they sent to everyone about their account being compromised looked fake. Links to three different domains? Come on guys! Link to your own site (you know, gawker.com), not something that looks like a URL redirection service.

    Subject: Gawker Comment Accounts Compromised -- Important
    From: "Gawker Media"
    Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010

    This weekend we discovered that Gawker Media's servers were compromised,
    resulting in a security breach at Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Gawker, Jezebel,
    io9, Jalopnik, Kotaku, Deadspin, and Fleshbot. As a result, the user name
    and password associated with your comment account were released on the
    internet. If you're a commenter on any of our sites, you probably have
    several questions.

    We understand how important trust is on the internet, and we're deeply
    sorry for and embarrassed about this breach of security. Right now we
    are working around the clock to improve security moving forward. We're
    also committed to communicating openly and frequently with you to make
    sure you understand what has happened, how it may or may not affect you,
    and what we're doing to fix things.

    This is what you should do immediately: Try to change your password in
    the Gawker Media Commenting System. If you used your Gawker Media
    password on any other web site, you should change the password on those
    sites as well, particularly if you used the same username or email with
    that site. To be safe, however, you should change the password on those
    accounts whether or not you were using the same username.

    We're continually updating an FAQ (http://lifehac.kr/eUBjVf) with more
    information and will continue to do so in the coming days and weeks.

    Gawker Media

    =========
    You are receiving this email because your email
    address was associated with a Gawker Media user
    account. We are using this list only for the
    purpose of sending you this important notification.

    Unsubscribe [deleted]@[deleted] from this list:
    http://gawkermedia.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=%5Bdeleted%5D

    Our mailing address is:
    Gawker Media
    210 Elizabeth St
    Floor 4
    New York, New York 10012

  30. No account delete option by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

    But they're "working on it." This from a company that has railed against Facebook and other sites for privacy violations. Here's an official Gawker response from a year and a half ago to give you an idea of their real attitude towards user privacy and account deletion:

    Requesting purge of accounts

    What a bunch of asshats.

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
    1. Re:No account delete option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I managed to screw up the link:

      Requesting purge of accounts

  31. If hackers had any sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they would put their knowledge to use in a job. However, instead of creating, they'd rather destroy. And you can't even reliably hire them for that, as you couldn't depend on them to finish jobs.

  32. Public key encryption is far better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've started to use public keys with github and gitorious and I'm really impressed with the ease of use of that system. It would guard against this kind of problem and a password reset will never be required. The only issue is if my computer gets compromised but that vulnerability is pretty much the same as in a world where browsers store passwords for convenience. Public/private keys being in use in more situations can only be a good thing.

    1. Re:Public key encryption is far better by icebraining · · Score: 1

      With https://certifi.ca/ you can use public key authentication for OpenID enabled websites.

  33. Use a password manager by rsborg · · Score: 1

    I have several passwords I use. Sites that require accounts for participation get one that I don't care if it gets out in the wild. No big loss. People posting as me is mildly amusing.

    This isn't meant as an advert, but I use a password manager that works on all my devices (autofill on Win/Mac), and now ALL my passwords are at least decent. Mind you, I don't create 30char+ passphrases for anything but my most secure items, but, say a 12-14 character generated password with spaces or dashes and single syllable "words" like "boy oft-rong" is both memorable, not easily guessable, and long enough to avoid small-midsize rainbow tables.

    I worry that even breaches of sites like slashdot can eventually reveal enough information about me that could lead to social engineering attacks or physical theft (ie, posting about my impending vacation while believing I'm anonymous)

    There is a level of trust required, but I'd rather trust the maker of my password manager than some disreputable site like Gawker.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Use a password manager by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I started using Lastpass (www.lastpass.com) about a year ago, used Keypass before that. Once you get used to never trying to remember your password, you can crank up the number and range. its amazing how many sites don't want passwords more than 8 characters, or the 1st digit can't start with a number, or no special characters. Its really quite sad.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Use a password manager by rsborg · · Score: 1

      1password has browser integration, so it's quite useful (like roboform)... I simply press CMD-\ and if there's only set of creds for that form, they get populated and submitted.

      For password generation, it's also great because it allows you to specify those restrictions.

      Too bad it doesn't work with non-browser apps :-)

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Use a password manager by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I don't have to have a password manager. I have all my passwords in my head. That is not the problem. The problem is assuming something is secure, when it is not, and using secure passwords when that is purely security theater.

      Being Secure online is impossible. I don't trust anyone. People I trust less, get less info, and weaker passwords just reminds me I don't trust them.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  34. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by bughunter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yea, well it happened to the "customers" of those jerks, too.

    I had a registered account on Gizmodo, mostly to write posts telling an author how full of shit they were, or to correct silicon/silicone errors, etc., but that's immaterial.

    What is material is that I've been getting emails from hosts of hosts upon which I've used that same email address to register, telling me I need to change my password, even though my password is not the same from site to site.

    Worse, in a fit of idiocy, battle.net decided that, since my battle.net account is identified with an email address that they found on the leaked Gawker database, that they'd go ahead and reset my password. Yes, unsolicited. Despite the facts that a) my password does not hash to the string associated with the address in the database, b) I have an authenticator attached to the account, and c) it's not their fucking business to reset my password without asking first.

    So what happened next? After getting the email from battle.net, I went to their account management page, and entered a new password -- and am then unable to login using those credentials. They broke my access for 36 hours. For no valid reason.

    If I had actually held a desire to play during that time, I'd have been royally pissed. As it is, I'm just royally irritated at their stupidity, and at the subsequent neutronium density of their CS group to be completely unable to parse my simple request: "your password reset broke my login, please fix it," and instead treated me as if I had reported my account hacked. So now my WoW account is locked down while they review whatever they think they need to review.

    Mass idiocy all around, yes, but precipitated by the arrogant idiocy of Gawker.

    And of course, just for safety, I've had to go and change accounts everywhere to be registered with a new email address - or where not possible, rotate passwords... which I usually do, but not all at fucking once. I spent three hours last night going over my list of accounts and passwords and updating everything, including my home network, which caused things to break for other family members who are now calling me with "I can't use the web; I can't get to pokemon.com; why isn't Miro working?" etc.

    So, long screed made short: The pain, there's more than enough to go around, even for the undeserving.

    Or, in the the now immortal, um... expression, of an anonymous /b/tard: Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...!!

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  35. It's not the hack by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    The problem isn't that Gawker got hacked, although that's bad enough (serious loss of geek cred there, kiddies). The real issue is Gawker's slow and ineffectual reaction to it. Why did we hear about the hack on Slashdot before we heard about it from Gawker? And has Gawker taken any real responsibility for the incident? Have they even apologized?

  36. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Well. At least you weren't on Fleshbot...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  37. Is this a big deal? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    They have "disenfranchised their users" and caused a big "breach in trust that may well be impossible to regain"?? Really?

    I thought the hacked sites were all glorified blog sites. I had a gizmodo username and I just don't care if someone hacked it. I changed my password when I heard about th ehack, but really, its not like they stole my credit card, or for that matter, not even any true identifying data about myself. The email address was the same email address I give out to all such sites that exists just so I can receive the registration verification emails.

    Did some people have something of real value stolen? I have had my credit card number stolen (Thanks Nashbar!) and that was more of a pain, I had to get a new card and move some recurring payments to the new card. But I really find it hard to get worked up about someone stealing my gizmodo identity.

    1. Re:Is this a big deal? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the big deal is because they actually HAD a friggin lot of visitors, proven even by you visiting them.

      they had a good chance and blew it, well, they blew it with shitty articles first.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  38. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

    Actually XKCD predicted this only a few months back:
    http://www.xkcd.com/792/

  39. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by cyclocommuter · · Score: 1

    I understand your pain. I didn't even realize I an email of mine was in the Gawker database until I got an email from them advising me that my email password might have been compromised. It turned out I did register for LifeHacker long time before it got bought out by Gawker. I couldn't even remember the password I used for that account so just to be safe changed all the passwords I had on various sites. Took me almost half a day to complete... what a pain in the rear.

  40. Dump the password system by kentsin · · Score: 1

    Using the db of passwords as dictionary, I do not think any password system still secure!

  41. I learned that slashdotters... by miguelfrommars · · Score: 1

    ...probably use the same top ranked passwords as Gawkers. I had no trouble changing my password to trustno1. Oops.

  42. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by GarryFre · · Score: 1

    Totally agree, they get hacked and suddenly sites I did not think had anything to do with gawker media or the sites mentioned in the article, are demanding that I change my passwords. I chose my passwords because they meant something to me I could remember so I would not have to consult the password TOME I would require so I an log into some stupid site I forgot the password for. Many dozens of times I find I am not able to log into sites because of so called incorrect log in info, and I go consult the stupid database only to find that my info is correct, and they are wrong. In view of this, I think gawker media has been hacked probably a number of times, but this is either the first time they noticed, or the first time someone said something about it so the public finds out. I'm so pissed at all this that I almost wish I had a gawker account so I could ask for it to be deleted!

    --
    www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
  43. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not their fucking business to reset my password without asking first.

    Actually it.. it is their business. You're a customer. They provide the service. Their TOS pretty much give them carte blanche. And changing your password is much cheaper for them than having to deal with your support call if the account were compromised. Yes it's a bit retarded that you have a token and they still require a password change but to be honest if it were me, I'd do the same thing because to put it bluntly: shifting costs onto consumers is better than carrying them as a business if you can. Sucks but that's life.

  44. I believe it was said best in Wargames... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey, I don't believe that any system is totally secure." -Lightman

  45. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it is, I'm just royally irritated at their stupidity, and at the subsequent neutronium density of their CS group to be completely unable to parse my simple request: "your password reset broke my login, please fix it,"

    Wow, if that's really all you said to them, no wonder it took a while. They had to go figure out whether you were part of one of their bulk resets (the Gawker reset isn't even the first bulk one this month for them, I bet) or whether you requested a reset using a form, and then it broke, etc. You could have explained what they did and what you did in response, instead of being a douchebag.

  46. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by Supurcell · · Score: 2
    Why did you change your password if it wasn't the same one that you used for your Gawker network account?

    I received a similar email from Blizzard. Here it is:

    We've received a request to reset the password for this Battle.net account. Please click this link to reset your password: (link omitted)

    If you no longer wish to make the above change, or if you did not initiate this request, please disregard and/or delete this e-mail.

    You didn't have to change it. They just thought they'd do the right thing and offer to help protect their customers before it was needed. An ounce of prevention and all that.

  47. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    yeah.. just about every one of their publications happen to suck.

    my only regret is not noticing that trend fast enough before registering as commenter, iirc the registration process had some frustration to it too - not to mention that almost all articles there give you that nagging feeling that you should comment to correct some obvious flaw in the logic of the article.

    nowadays I just don't follow to sites I know to be from them.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  48. Re:Gawker? Scadenfreude Central Hoist on own Petar by bughunter · · Score: 1

    I was forced to change it. They reset it. I didn't.

    I received two emails, the first was a notice that a reset request occured:

    We've received a request to reset the password for this Battle.net account. Please click this link to reset your password:
    https://us.battle.net/account/support/password-reset-confirm.xml?ticket=OBFUSCATED

    If you no longer wish to make the above change, or if you did not initiate this request, please disregard and/or delete this e-mail.

    If you have any questions regarding your Battle.net account, click here for answers to frequently asked questions and contact information for the Blizzard Billing & Account Services team.

    Sincerely,
    The Battle.net Account Team

    The second was this friendly notice, confirming that they decided to do this on their own:

    Greetings!

    We’ve recently been informed that several Gawker Media websites have been compromised. These websites include Gawker, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Jezebel, io9, Jalopnik, Deadspin, and Fleshbot. To help minimize the effects of this compromise and help keep your Battle.net account safe and secure, we’ve reset your account password. To complete the password reset, please log into Battle.net Account Management (https://us.battle.net/account/management) and follow the provided instructions.

    If you are a registered commenter for any of these sites and used your Battle.net email address to sign up with Gawker Media, we also recommend that you update your Battle.net address as soon as possible via Account Management. If you are unable to complete this step or the password reset on your own and believe your account may be compromised, please contact our customer support staff by using the Account Recovery form (https://us.battle.net/account/support/account-recovery.html) and be sure to check out our Account Security Awareness guide (http://us.battle.net/en/security/) for additional security tips and suggestions.

    For more information about this situation, please visit Gawker Media’s official announcement (http://gawker.com/5713056/gawker-security-breach-were-here-to-help) or Lifehacker’s comprehensive FAQ (http://lifehacker.com/5712785/faq-compromised-commenting-accounts-on-gawker-media).

    Regards,
    Blizzard Entertainment

    So I navigated to battle.net using a trusted means, and completed the password reset. This appeared to work; I received no error notices. But when I attempted to actually log in to my battle.net account, I got a LOGIN FAILED result every time.

    It was NOT necessary, or polite, or even really their business to do this without asking first . Especially when they can easily determine that I am using an authenticator.

    I've been dealing with Blizzard customer service for 12 years, now, and they've continuously grown worse and worse and worse. About the time Wrath came out, it was pretty clear that their 'A' team had left for greener pastures/advanced projects and the 'B' team remained behind for the customers to deal with.

    My latest correspondence with them over this issue was the worst yet. If the interaction I had with this 'person' that I dealt with was any indication, then he couldn't even pass a Turing test. Even the words "PLEASE ELEVATE" just got me another canned response to perform a password reset.

    I swear, i was dealing with a script, and a half-assed one at that.

    At some point, sometime between 36 and 48 hours later, someone behind the scenes untangled the mess that had been created, and the login began working again.

    I suspect it was a "nested reset" condition. Blizzard initiated a reset, and sent me a link to complete the reset. But being a good phish-proof customer, I ignored the link and used a trusted bookmark to navigate to battle.net, and initiated another reset, without completing the first one. They should have anticipated this, though, because they've been telling us for years "do not follow links in emails to pages that request your password."

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  49. too late by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

    gawker lost all credibility with me when they blamed easyDNS for pulling the plug on Wikileaks (actual culprit was everyDNS). Shit happens, it's an easily made typo. My problem is when they basically told the easyDNS owner that they would edit the original press release without acknolwedging that any edit had been made, let alone apologize. They basically told easyDNS to fuck off and quit whining after gawkers error almost got easyDNS DDOS'd into oblivion. Even the National Enquirer has more spine (at least when they admit fault)

    --
    When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson