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."

Comments

plain-text OS?

[edmudama]

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

Re:plain-text OS?

[0100010001010011]

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

Re:plain-text OS?

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:plain-text OS?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Re:plain-text OS?

[varcher]

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!

Unfortunately....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG

[xtracto]

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?

Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Summary is COMPLETELY WRONG

[LBU.Zorro]

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.

Re:well...

[definate]

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."

Re:A simple solution

[ArsenneLupin]

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!

So how about a fucking link?

[Eunuchswear]

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.

Before everyone gets too excited...

[Noryungi]

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!)

Re:well...

[snspdaarf]

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