Slashdot Mirror


France Outlaws Hashed Passwords

An anonymous reader writes "Storing passwords as hashes instead of plain text is now illegal in France, according to a draconian new data retention law. According to the BBC, '[t]he law obliges a range of e-commerce sites, video and music services and webmail providers to keep a host of data on customers. This includes users' full names, postal addresses, telephone numbers and passwords. The data must be handed over to the authorities if demanded.' If the law survives a pending legal challenge by Google, Ebay and others, it may well keep some major services out of the country entirely."

34 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. plain-text OS? by edmudama · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't this make most operating systems illegal? Who doesn't store the password as a hashed copy?

    --
    More data, damnit!
    1. Re:plain-text OS? by norpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't have to be plain-text, they are just saying that it must be stored in a way that allows the plaintext to be provided on request.

      I'm pretty sure AD allows you to store passwords in reversible encryption rather than hashes if you so chose.

    2. Re:plain-text OS? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In that case. Point them to the md5 rainbow tables and store it as md5.

    3. Re:plain-text OS? by fredmosby · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article says they have to be able to provide the actual passwords. The idea behind using a hash it that the actual password isn't stored and can't be determined using the hash. That way if someone steals their data they still can't get the actual user passwords. According to the article, any secure implementation of hashed passwords would be in violation of this law.

    4. Re:plain-text OS? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If enough large internet entities black-holed France as a united front, the law (or France) would go away and other countries would learn a very valuable lesson. That or just declare that since it's a lot of trouble to maintain multiple authentication systems, all French Citizens will have their password set to "password".

      An alternative would be to start hacking and publishing password lists for France.

    5. Re:plain-text OS? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't make much difference - the hash time is a constant factor, which is largely irrelevant when talking about complexity classes. The bigger advantage of using some other hash is that it's larger. For example, MD5 is 128 bits, but SHA-1 is 160 bits. This means that an SHA-1 rainbow table needs around four billion times more entries than for MD5. If storage capacity doubles every year, then an MD5 rainbow table becomes feasible 32 years before an SHA-1 rainbow table. In contrast, a constant factor slowdown is offset by a constant factor speedup (e.g. using a GPU or custom DSP).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:plain-text OS? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny how Americans (you're American, right?) started making so many jokes about the French surrendering the moment France became one of the most resistant to US behaviour over Iraq.

      We were making jokes about France surrendering long before Iraq.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:plain-text OS? by varcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would.

      If the law stated this, which, of course, it doesn't. But no one apparently took time to properly read it before firing the paranoia flares.

      The "password" bit is part of a data retention clause for account management. On any account that a service provider created for an on-line service or access, you must retain some data for ONE year after the account is closed. Among the bits is, I cite - translated - "password, means to validate it". And, hidden a few lines below is the clincher "such data must be retained only if it was collected".

      In other words, the law states that:

      1) If you get a password in plaintext and store it as is, you must KEEP a copy of that password for one year after the account has closed

      2) If you get a password and store a way of validating that password (such as a hash), you must KEEP a copy of that hash or whatever for one year after the account has closed.

      3) If you don't use a password for the service (for example, you are an ISP, and access from your customers to their DSL is entirely authenticated by the telco end), then you keep nothing. But for a year, of course!

    8. Re:plain-text OS? by ProfBooty · · Score: 3, Informative

      You never heard of the phrase "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" from the Simpsons in the mid 90's? The way the French are portrayed in US media, asides from their women, are typically not very positive. One could look at older US media to see so, in which Frenchmen are portrayed in the same manner in which Americans appear to be portrayed abroad.

      Anyways, a good american history class should cover where the ideas enshrined in the US constitution, Declaration of independence etc should come from. When I was in high school, they predominantly emphasised John Locke's influence though he is certainly not the only one.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  2. Unfortunately.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its still likely that if an eCommerce site is hacked and personal data is stolen, they will still be liable for not taking adequate care in storing personal information such as following best practices for passwords.

    Rock vs Hard Place

  3. French style by xonen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the law survives a pending legal challenge by Google, Ebay and others, it may well keep some major services out of the country entirely.

    Actually, that's probably exactly what the French are after; even if it's only a `side-effect` in this case. The French don't like foreign companies taking their market. France is like a mini-version of the world: they got to redo everything themselves, in french style.

    Stating that this effect is 'on purpose' is hard to prove. After all, european legislation would come and demand open markets. So they found a sneaky way around it. Make up some privacy breaking law. ...? Profit!.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    1. Re:French style by YoopDaDum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Politics in France are particularly clueless about technology. Worse, they think they know it all because they had some cute web site with streaming video being designed for them. And someone who think he's good without having a clue is dangerous indeed. The current France government is full swing in security posturing, without much concern for the practical consequences that are not so clear to them anyway. All this is enough to explain this new law.

      As for being a trick to favor French firms, this is incorrect as local companies are also affected and suffer from this. From the article, one of the companies attacking this law is DailyMotion, and they're French. I don't see any tech company being happy about this.

      Lastly, there have been several laws cancelled in France recently due to either being incompatible with Europeans laws or being against France own constitution. That gives you an idea of how much the projects were well prepared and thought out... So this is not done and over.

  4. A simple solution by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know a lot of people will say that these companies should block France to bully the government to repeal the law, but that really is not workable and would be against shareholder's interests.

    The easiest solution is just to comply with the law. But rather than change the data structures of the backend software to accommodate one country, they should just blank out all the passwords and disable the ability to change them. It is a win for everyone then. The companies comply with the law. The police, fraud office, customs, tax and social security bodies can all access the citizens records directly without burdening the service providers.

    And of course, the French people get a valuable lesson in why they should care about who can access their accounts. Let the French people decide whether this is a good idea or not at the next election!

    1. Re:A simple solution by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hehe, reminds me about when France leaned on Luxembourg to repeal its banking secrecy laws.

      Luxembourg slowly started complying... by first publishing account details about French politicians! Always be careful what you ask for!

    2. Re:A simple solution by jodido · · Score: 3, Insightful

      15 percent in the local elections is not "massive," it's about the same as the fascist-minded Patrick Buchanan got in the US when he ran. There are members of US Congress whose politics=National Front. French society is having deep problems and just like US, UK, etc they are trying to find a scapegoat.

  5. Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG by xtracto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Storing passwords as hashes instead of plain text is now illegal in France,

    No, it is not. Nowhere in the article (yes, I read it) does it say that. The law that is being challenged by Google and others is one that requires them to store users' information for one year.

    It is still completely possible for Google to use hashed passwords to authenticate users and only "save" the plain password in a "write only" file (text or separate database) with the unhashed passwords...

    Shit, if they were required to provide a plain password, they could use any of the cracking tools to obtain exactly that one... or just "reset" the password of the account and give it to the French police.

    Nevertheless, the law is still idiotic, as they say in the article; just a couple of months ago France slapped Google due to some privacy issues, and now they want them to keep so much data for so long time?

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, I'm French.
      I read the law http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023646013&dateTexte=&oldAction=rechJO&categorieLien=id

      You have to store information about content creators only (not relevant for a pure mail provider, maybe in the case of a multiservice google account).
      Password, and payment information, among others, must be given upon request to the authorities, but as i understand, ONLY IF THEY ARE ALREADY COLLECTED.

      Not that I think it's a "good" law, but it is not as bad as said in the article, as I understand it.

    2. Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3

      or just "reset" the password of the account and give it to the French police.

      This tips off the target that they cops are onto them. I was going to write suspect, but assumes that this will not get abused by the government to spy on non-suspects too.

      I guess the way to protect yourself from this surveillance is to change your password on a daily basis (or even twice a day). By the time that the request has been processed by the service provider and passed onto the authority, then it will already be out of date.

    3. Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Summary isn't completely wrong, you're actually wrong.

      The article specifically states that

      The law obliges a range of e-commerce sites, video and music services and webmail providers to keep a host of data on customers.

      This includes users' full names, postal addresses, telephone numbers and passwords. The data must be handed over to the authorities if demanded.

      Which means that they would have to store the password, and be able to give it out to authorities.

      So, to take your points:

      It is still completely possible for Google to use hashed passwords to authenticate users and only "save" the plain password in a "write only" file (text or separate database) with the unhashed passwords...

      Yes, but this is stupid and really gets rid of the point of having the hashed password in the first place. Now you have two copies, and even better if you hack the french data you start potentially having information necessary to recover passwords from other more secure countries. As for the 'write only' file, seriously? the only write only file is /dev/null, if you can read it at all there's the possibility that it can be read by bad people - that's what a security breach is... I suppose you could use a printer and print them all, if there's no digital way to read it then it would have to be a physical security breach, but the cost of compliance?

      Shit, if they were required to provide a plain password, they could use any of the cracking tools to obtain exactly that one...

      Kinda plausible, if only hashes were guaranteed to be one to one, only they aren't as it is possible to have hash collisions where two passwords can point to the same hash. This doesn't usually matter but it does mean you wouldn't be able to guarantee that there was no hash-collision and you were giving the authorities the wrong password, which would be illegal under this law. Granted the authorities may not know this and many not do anything about it, but if they wanted to be evil it wouldn't be hard to prove non-compliance.

      or just "reset" the password of the account and give it to the French police.

      Yeah, as above this would be giving them the incorrect password and would be violating the law. You really think they want the password to log into the site? Seriously? When they can just demand access? Most likely they're taking advantage of the fact that people tend to use the same passwords, so getting a historical record (and note this information has to be held for at least a year) of passwords for that user means there is a high likelihood that they'll be able to access data outside of their country. The law isn't asking them for their current password, or should I say not JUST their current password, it's asking for ALL of this data for the last year.

      It's a data retention law, not a you must provide this to authorities when asked. You have to gather the information all the time and keep it for a minimum of a year and provide all that historical information on request (this is not just the current information). Which means you cannot just provide the current information, or reverse a hash etc.

      The law is broad reaching, really intrusive and will cause far more problems for anyone than the french might hope it will solve, but for some reason you (after apparently reading the article) missed entirely the point of it.

      Z.

    4. Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem in your scenario is that there's no such thing as a "write only" file...

      Not correct. There are lots of ways of setting up a system that can write but not read. For example, a line printer that records a transaction log. To see the password, you have to physically read the printout. You could get the same effect with a dedicated server with a single-use connection to the main server (and no internet connection! Doesn't even need to have a TCP/IP stack) and a well controlled software environment.

  6. Re:well... by definate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't wait till the next news article after this goes live...

    "There has been a sudden increase in credit card fraud in France of late, due to users using the same password on every different system. So when a .fr site is hacked or an employee goes rogue, suddenly you get a lot more than you originally bargained for."

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. Where are the politicians with tech knowledge??? by niftydude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I seem to be seeing more and more stories like this, where politicians make incredibly ill-conceived laws due to their ignorance of technical detail.

    I don't know if it is the same in france, but in my country, the parliaments seem to be loaded chock full of former lawyers and accountants, and not much else. This creates a massive blind spot in the outlook of the people governing us.

    Quite frankly, they are not up to the task of designing law for the current age. The issues facing the world currently seem to be overwhelmingly technical and scientific in nature, whether it be internet privacy, net neutrality, or global warming, and the current breed of politicians seem intent on foisting the stupidest solutions available upon us. Most often because they don't understand the possible alternatives.

    Where are the engineers and scientists willing to step up and serve their country politically? We need you.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  8. So how about a fucking link? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing in the BBC story or the Slashdot submission gives a link to actual useful details.

    There's nothing on the ASIC site, nothing on http://www.laquadrature.net/

    All I can find online is http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/conservation-des-donnees-sur-internet-l-asic-se-fache-39759703.htm

    Turns out that the law was passed in 2004. This is about the "decret d'application", i.e. the note from the government that specifies exactly what the retention period is.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  9. Before everyone gets too excited... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have to remember that this is France, a country where laws are voted by Parliament, but then quietly dropped once less clueless people realize they are unworkable.

    Think I am crazy? In France, to become the "law of the land", any legislative PoS like this one must be first described and "configured" -- so to speak -- through "Décrets d'application" that are written by the Government. Any law that does not have its "Décrets" is simply not applied by the courts. And you would be surprised to learn that -- if I remember correctly -- close to 50% (I think the number was 43% to 45%) of all laws voted by Parliament never receive a "Décrets".

    In other words, it goes something like this:

    A. Clueless Parliament vote clueless law, based on a clueless request ("Think of the Children!") by a clueless (Conservative) Government. For instance: "Evil Nazi Hackers Must Surrender Passwords to Police Or Else!".

    B. Every geek in France loudly protests and are soundly ignored by Clueless Parliament: Clueless law passes and makes it mandatory for all Evil Hackers to surrender passwords to police (Or Else). Yeah, right. You can pry my passwords from my cold, dead fingers, mate.

    C. Large, politically influential e-commerce companies (Errr... www.fnac.com, www.amazon.fr, etc) quietly contact Government and whipers: "Clueless law will destroy e-commerce in France. By the way, e-commerce is now worth XYZ Billion Euros a year in France and here is a (large) check for your... er... humanitarian projects".

    D. Clueless Government promptly forget all about Clueless Law, which is, in turn, immediately ignored by all the Courts of Justice in France.

    E. Profit. Meaning: everyone is happy: (Clueless Conservative) Governement and Parliament posture and pretend they are doing something about children-threatening Evil Hackers (tm), declare victory on all Evil Hackers and move on to the next "outrage du jour", e-commerce sites go back to business as usual and Courts breathe a sigh of relief they won't have to get into a whole heap of trouble trying to judge something so badly designed. Even the police is happy because they will now have another tool to be able to put pressure on small businesses in order to hound them. Big businesses, of course, have their own ways of dealing with that kind of pressure (see point C above).

    Move along folks, nothing to see here: just clueless (Conservative/Liberal) politicians doing their jobs.

    If I sound cynical, it's because I freaking hate these freaking people. I am just so sick & tired of these fsckers. As a Frenchman, I really think it's time to get the Guillotine out, give it a good scrub, and start chopping some (politician) heads off. Tree of liberty refreshed by the blood of tyrants and all that.

    Welcome to France, just make sure you hand over all your passwords to the nice man in blue at the frontier. (Just kidding!)

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Before everyone gets too excited... by alexhs · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only problem here is that it is about the application decree (posted by an AC in this thread). The law was voted in 2004 (surprise surprise, Sarkozy was the minister of economy at that time).

      The relevant portion of the decree is :

      Les données mentionnées au II de l'article 6 de la loi du 21 juin 2004 susvisée, que les personnes sont tenues de conserver en vertu de cette disposition, sont les suivantes :
      [...]
      3 Pour les personnes mentionnées aux 1 et 2 du I du même article, les informations fournies lors de la souscription d'un contrat par un utilisateur ou lors de la création d'un compte :
      [...]
      g) Le mot de passe ainsi que les données permettant de le vérifier ou de le modifier, dans leur dernière version mise à jour ;

      Translation :
      The data mentioned in Section II of Article 6 of the Act of June 21, 2004 referred to above, that individuals are required to keep under this provision are as follows:
      [...]
      3 For the persons referred to in 1 and 2 of Article I of the same, the information given upon subscription of a contract by a user or when creating an account:
      [...]
      g) The password and the information needed to verify or change it, in their latest updated version;

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  10. All these comments by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And nobody sees this is easy to implement and perfectly safe.
    1. Create a GPG key pair
    2. Put the public key on the login server, the private key in a safe.
    3. When setting the password, encrypt the plaintext password with the public key.

    If law enforcement comes calling, get the encrypted GPG message. Decrypt on a secure offline machine using the key from the safe. There you have it, recoverable passwords with essentially no safety risk that I can see.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  11. Re:well... by gilleain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Railroad tracks are defined to be 2 horse asses wide, which actually has a history back to the Roman empire.

    RIGHT well, APART from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order...

    WHAT have the romans ever done for US?

  12. Re:well... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they have access to the system checking the passwords though, it's still receiving the password in plaintext from the user.

    Depends on the authentication scheme used. In some, only the client ever has access to the plaintext password. For example:

    1. The server stores a salt and a hashed password
    2. The client connects, and receives two salts from the server.
    3. The client hashes the password with both salts and uploads the result.
    4. The server validates the old hash, then stores the new salt and hash.

    The other advantage of this is that the server doesn't know when the user has changed its password. The server is required to change the stored password each login, so it's impossible to steal someone's account without their knowledge, unless you get their password via some other means. If you log in, you must change their password, and the next time they log in they will discover that it's changed.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:well... by silanea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am pretty sure the width of horse asses varies just as wildly. Now whether there lies a correlation...

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  14. Oh non... by muckracer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mon mot de passe est une table de hachage, vous mottes insensible!

  15. Re:well... by icebraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can see a push towards OpenID, or more realistically, Facebook/Twitter/Google authentication services in French websites.

  16. Completely wrong by yro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "decret d'application" of the law (it's a law from 2004 but not applicable before this "decret") doesn't prohibit hashed password. It's a misinterpretation of the decret.
    Actually, it states that IF you store the password in clear text for authentication, you have to keep the password in clear text in your logs during a year. But IF you store a hashed version of the password, you have to log the last hashed used. And if you don't store your users' password (logged via facebook or other centralized authentication) you don't have to.

    The decret only specify what to keep in the logs IF the information is already known and stored. It doesn't specify WHAT to store. What to store is specified by a EU directive.

    Yro

  17. Re:well... by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just looking around my office, I see a number of horse's asses, and their width is quite different.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  18. Re:well... by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Government's a lot like religion. It's done so many bad things that a huge amount of ignorant people think the world would be better off without it. If you care at all to get your head out of your ass, you'll realize that it's done an incredible amount of unequaled good, too, between its short spurts of horrifically bad, though.

    Also like religion, it's a basic need of the world at large. Try as you might to replace it with something else or even nothing it all, it'll always come creeping back in/ Even in tribal societies there are village elders.

    Human beings need to organize. We're social creatures. When we organize in groups, it is imperative that we defend ourselves from incursions from other groups. Otherwise, the other groups will take our stuff and we will perish. The most basic groups, like the tribe, are readily destroyed by the more organized groups (like the genocide practiced on the American Indians). Big groups are subject to fragmentation (see the American Civil War). Government is never a static thing, it is a practical, seat-of-the-pants human thing.

    Arguing whether government is good is like arguing whether the atmosphere is good. We need both.