Slashdot Mirror


FTC Fines RockYou $250,000 For Storing User Data In Plain Text

An anonymous reader writes "You probably don't remember the RockYou fiasco as it happened in late 2009. In case you don't, social game developer RockYou suffered a serious SQL injection flaw on its flagship website. Worse, the company was storing user details in plain text. As a result, tens of millions of login details, including those belonging to minors, were stolen and published online. Now, RockYou has finally settled with the Federal Trade Commission."

127 comments

  1. They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    A category 3. Could have been worse.

    1. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by mcl630 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We will
      We will
      Rock You!

      We will
      We will
      Fine You!

    2. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So, when's Sony getting fined for storing data in the clear as exposed in the PSN and LulzSec breaches?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      A new bel-air for a new age?

    4. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 funny if i had mod points today...

    5. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I think the Helix song will work better in this case...Gimme an F..I..N..E..whats ya got? FINE!, and what we gonna do? FINE YOU!

      BTW you know you're old if you actually remember that song, sadly I saw the title and it instantly popped into my head. Hell I heard them playing AC/DC on the muzak channel at the local Walmart the other day, you know you're old when the "subversive' music you grew up on is now played for shoppers at the Wally World.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by Mad+Leper · · Score: 2

      They never stored any data in plain text. The incident you're likely referring to was a PSN user that had installed custom firmware on his PS3. The CFW was purposely designed to steal credit card info and transmit it back in plain text.

    7. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will
      We will
      Pay the ridiculously tiny fine and keep rocking You!

      (The apocryphal verses)

    8. Re:They fined RockYou like a hurricane! by mcgrew · · Score: 1
  2. Passwords!? by smc170 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "As a refresher, here were the top 10 passwords used by RockYou users: 123456 12345 123456789 Password iloveyou princess rockyou 1234567 12345678 abc123" Very original!

    --
    I am Jacks complete lack of Windows
  3. Plain text by maroberts · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suspect that whilst websites have user/password control, and whilst it is common to encrypt passwords in a database, most other database records are mostly in plain text

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  4. Seems silly by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative
    There are perfectly legitimate reasons to maintain user account information in the clear: Namely, that you can't one-way hash anything except the login credentials and have it remain useful. So storing something in plaintext, or not, is not something worth suing and fining someone over. That said, storing the passwords in the clear is almost always a bad idea; and in this day and age, everyone should be using password hashes, preferably with a salt as well, as rainbow tables are increasingly common and accessible as storage costs decrease.

    So just want that out there: There are some limited cases where storing login credentials in the clear is a necessity. But that's no excuse for not sanitizing the data... SQL injection attacks are stupidly easy to prevent, and the web designer who wrote the code that allowed it should probably be censured. If you're going to fine a company -- fine them for the injection attack... but leaving data in plain text is not a problem per se.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Seems silly by smc170 · · Score: 0

      If in the terms and conditions they were to say: "We will store your data as plain text" or something like that, could they still get fined? If the user agreed then that's their fault, not the companies?

      --
      I am Jacks complete lack of Windows
    2. Re:Seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need is login credentials that should be hashed. If they want to store data store it on the users PC in a fashion where they can get to it if the user provides their login credentials.

    3. Re:Seems silly by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      There are perfectly legitimate reasons to maintain user account information in the clear

      Personal user information? SS Numbers, addresses? Really?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:Seems silly by mlts · · Score: 1

      Ideally, they should store the user data encrypted with a random key (and salt, of course, so one user's files that have the same contents can't be told from another.) That random key is stored encrypted with either the data from recovery questions, or the user's password able to unlock it, neither available/recoverable from the stored, salted hashes. Of course, if the user chooses crappy recovery answers, an attacker would have it easy to unlock items, but that form of security is up to the user.

    5. Re:Seems silly by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      There are one-way encryption methods (for example, MD5, SHA1) which only allow you to encrypt a string, but not decrypt it. There are also two-way encryption schemes (allows encryption and decryption), like AES Encryption. If I had to store data which could identify users or credit card information, I would look into two-way encryption mechanisms (those which can be both encrypted and decrypted).

      More info on using AES to store credit card info.

      The theory behind these algorithms is quite involved, but the programming interfaces to use them are very simple. A developer should take 60 minutes to learn about them, first out of respect for the users, and second, to avoid ending up in the news.

    6. Re:Seems silly by sootman · · Score: 1

      > There are perfectly legitimate reasons to maintain user account information
      > in the clear: Namely, that you can't one-way hash anything except the login
      > credentials and have it remain useful.

      There is a middle ground between plain-text and one-way hashes: it's called "encryption" and it's just like a one-way hash except it's two-way.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:Seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of this makes sense when you're talking about a SQL injection or other service compromise. No matter how may ways you encrypt stored values, if it is made available in decrypted form for normal system function (e.g. to display any of the data back to a user, or to calculate other results), then a compromised service can reveal that decrypted form too. Worrying about whether it was encrypted or not only makes sense if someone stole the server disks out of the datacenter, without stealing the entire machine to capture decryption keys too.

    8. Re:Seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem with two way encryption is that, if they've already penetrated the server to get the data, they can probably poke around enough to get the decryption password. Which is probably stored in plaintext somewhere, what with having to be able to access it...

    9. Re:Seems silly by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Since when do normal systems need to display your password to you?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    10. Re:Seems silly by heypete · · Score: 1

      There are perfectly legitimate reasons to maintain user account information in the clear

      Personal user information? SS Numbers, addresses? Really?

      Sure. Just off the top of my head: an employer would need to keep social security numbers and addresses in the clear for tax purposes, as would pretty much any entity involved with financial transactions.

      Yes, the information could be encrypted in the database but the key would need to be accessible if users are able to view and edit their stored information or if the company needs to file tax-related information. This is essentially the same as keeping the information in the clear.

    11. Re:Seems silly by dave420 · · Score: 1

      But that wouldn't happen with an SQL injection vulnerability - they've not penetrated the actual server's filesystem, just the database.

    12. Re:Seems silly by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Since it helps his argument :)

    13. Re:Seems silly by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 1

      under what conditions would you consider storing a password as clear text not a bad idea?

    14. Re:Seems silly by sootman · · Score: 1

      There are many types of possible exploits. Maybe someone gets an SQL dump but since it doesn't run through the regular method it doesn't get decrypted on the fly. Security in layers, my friend. No single setting will prevent all bad things from happening, so you protect against different exploits in different ways. It doesn't hurt to have additional measures. It's not like there's some rule that says "You're only allowed to protect this data in one way."

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    15. Re:Seems silly by tepples · · Score: 1

      Under a requirement to pass this password to a third party when "linking accounts" (that is, making requests of the third party on the user's behalf). It could be stored encrypted in the database, but with what key?

    16. Re:Seems silly by isilrion · · Score: 1

      [detour]I always hesitate to call MD5 and SHA1 "encryption methods" instead of [cryptographic] hashes, but then I remember certain bank whose definition of hashing the user's password is to replace each letter with the corresponding number on a phone's keyboard. That is worse than using no encryption at all.[/detour]

      The problem with using AES or any other symmetric ciphers is that it merely turns the problem into a key management problem... it just relocates it, not solves it. Now instead of having to keep the data secure, you have to keep the key secure. Now, that problem is much easier to handle (the key is very small compared with the data), but it is far from solved: it depends way too much on what you need the data for. Any process that needs access to the data will need both the encrypted data and the key, thus becoming the vulnerable point. What encryption buys you is containment: only the processes that have the key can access the data, so you can concentrate on isolating those. Even better if you use some form of PKI, so not even the processes receiving the data can access it. For some problems (see http://benlog.com/articles/2011/12/21/encryption-is-mostly-not-magic/ ), that is quite useless, for others (like storing SSNs, there is no reason why an internet connected server should be able to retrieve the SSN), it can be quite effective.

    17. Re:Seems silly by isilrion · · Score: 1

      Since the GP was referring to "anything except the login credentials".

    18. Re:Seems silly by praxis · · Score: 1

      Under a requirement to pass this password to a third party when "linking accounts" (that is, making requests of the third party on the user's behalf). It could be stored encrypted in the database, but with what key?

      If the user is passing a clear-text password, you could use that as the key for their other passwords. Use your stored hash to validate their password, use their password as the key for their third-party data.

      If the user-agent is passing a hashed password, use a different hash as the key for third-party data. Send both hashes to the server, which uses one for authentication and the other for decryption of the third-party data.

    19. Re:Seems silly by tepples · · Score: 1

      If the user is passing a clear-text password, you could use that as the key for their other passwords. Use your stored hash to validate their password, use their password as the key for their third-party data.

      How would this password, which is the key for their third-party data, be securely stored between the moment the user logs in and several minutes later when the user needs to have the server fetch a resource from a third party?

    20. Re:Seems silly by praxis · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be all that secure in-memory, but an SQL injection attack won't reveal it. It's marginally more secure. I was merely answering the question about what a potential key to that field in the database would be.

    21. Re:Seems silly by tepples · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be all that secure in-memory, but an SQL injection attack won't reveal it.

      It would if sessions are stored on disk so that everyone isn't kicked out on an occasional planned reboot.

    22. Re:Seems silly by praxis · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, but that would be a pretty bad design. If some third-party is storing my credentials, I'd rather have to re-authenticate when they plan maintenance than have them store sensitive data unencrypted on disk.

    23. Re:Seems silly by tepples · · Score: 1

      Is there a best practice for storing sensitive data associated with a session using PHP and MySQL which is compatible with small-scale (that is, shared) web hosting? The first solution I think of, a table with storage engine MEMORY, can still get dumped with a properly done SQL injection attack performed against one of the few parts of the application that can't be parameterized due to MySQLi limitations.

    24. Re:Seems silly by praxis · · Score: 1

      I would say no, putting sensitive data on a machine that's shared with others is a bad practice no matter how you do it.

  5. Who is the victim here? by fizzer06 · · Score: 0
    "In agreeing to FTCâ(TM)s settlement, RockYou has been barred from future deceptive claims regarding privacy and data security, has to implement and maintain a data security program, must submit to security audits by independent third-party auditors every other year for 20 years, is barred from future violations of the COPPA Rule, is required to delete information collected from children under age 13, and must pay a $250,000 civil penalty."

    It's nice the government made a few bucks on this. I didn't see where the real victims, the kids, got a dime.

    1. Re:Who is the victim here? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That's what civil suits are for. The FTC just enforces applies fines.

  6. Hmmm by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So why couldn't they get the same deal Sony got?

    1. Re:Hmmm by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Was Sony violating COPPA too?

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Sony wasn't storing your password in plaintext. If you had bothered to keep yourself informed, you wouldn't have needed to ask such a blatantly stupid question.

  7. Reasons to store in plaintext by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    * Some users like to be reminded of their password if they forget. If you lost your password, what kind of email would you rather get?

    "Your password has been reset, and your new password is dFgk3b&4k72"

    or,

    "Your password is iloveyou123"

    * You might decide to fire up phpmyadmin and browse the `users` table for fun one day.

    * If you're going to hash the passwords, you should salt it too, and that just introduces too much complexity and things to screw up. Keep it simple!

    * Your boss doesn't know what a hash is, why should you?

    1. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by truedfx · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's most wrong with that is the suggestion that one might use phpmyadmin for fun.

    2. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to hash the passwords, you should salt it too,...

      My doctor told me to cut down on salt - so no salting on my hash. Just lots of ketchup.

    3. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by Skapare · · Score: 1

      There are existing functions and methods to do these things in all variations of web programming, as well as backend server code, even in C. There is zero excuse NOT to do big salted hashes.

      Of course, if the server is compromised, the malware can capture the plaintext passwords as users submit them. Passwords for inactive users generally tend to be of less value, anyway.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    4. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Could use encryption/decryption instead of a hash (and you can still just compare the encrypted values, a two for one special!)

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    5. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by rrohbeck · · Score: 0

      There are many masochists, as evidenced by the fact that they use PHP at all.

    6. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you were trying to be funny, but check the sodium content in your ketchup. And mustard too while you're at it.

    7. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      The reason people use hashes is because they are fast. Encryption/Decryption is relatively slow.

    8. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      * Some users like to be reminded of their password if they forget. If you lost your password, what kind of email would you rather get?

      "Your password has been reset, and your new password is dFgk3b&4k72"

      or,

      "Your password is iloveyou123"

      There are some websites I have accounts at which send that second "your password is XYZ123" type of e-mail.
      Then again, my password on those types of sites is usually something like "password"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Reasons to store in plaintext by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not even remotely true. You use hashes for passwords because IT CANNOT BE REVERSED. If someone breaks into your production systems, they probably can get access to whatever encryption key you might use to encrypt passwords, and then they can easily get ahold of everyone's plain-text password. If passwords are hashed, there is no such vulnerability (though the hash may be broken if you don't use salt and your users choose dumb passwords).

  8. What? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Colonel Sandurz: 1-2-3-4-5
    President Skroob: 1-2-3-4-5?
    Colonel Sandurz: Yes!
    President Skroob: That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

  9. This isn't fair... by Metricmouse · · Score: 4, Funny

    RockYou did the best they could by using double ROT13 encryption of these files. So sad to see them get fined.

    1. Re:This isn't fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double ROT13 was cracked ages ago. You need to use 200 rounds of ROT13 at least to be secure.

    2. Re:This isn't fair... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Double ROT13 was the best they could come up with? Haven't they heard about ROT26?

    3. Re:This isn't fair... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Actually, they used infinitely complex encryption by employing ROT13 infinitely many times (...for even values of infinity).

    4. Re:This isn't fair... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      -200 rounds is even more secure.

  10. Layers of problems. by khasim · · Score: 0

    Having the passwords in the clear would not be a problem if their servers were not so stupidly vulnerable.

    Stupidly vulnerable servers being the result of stupid admin/programmer.

    Stupid admin/programmer being the result of management that does not understand computer security.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    There are always a thousand reasons NOT to correctly handle basic computer security. Time, money, resources, training, blah, blah, blah. And there always will be. Which is why this type of incident will play out over and over again.

    If you're putting a server on the Internet and you have NOT solved the problem of hashing the passwords then there is a core problem that has not been addressed. Something is wrong with your business model or programmer or management or whatever.

    1. Re:Layers of problems. by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      f you're putting a server on the Internet and you have NOT solved the problem of hashing the passwords then there is a core problem that has not been addressed. Something is wrong with your business model or programmer or management or whatever.

      Not necessarily. If your website depends on impersonating you via login credentials to a third party, then without that website's cooperation, the login information is going to have to be stored in the clear. That was my only point: The headline and article indicates the FTC fined them because that information was stored in the clear, not gross negligence on the part of the web designer and company which allowed that information to be leaked. That is what the FTC should be punishing: Lack of code auditing, lack of access controls, etc. They should be saying the design was defective, instead of saying the data format was.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Layers of problems. by khasim · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If your website depends on impersonating you via login credentials to a third party, then without that website's cooperation, the login information is going to have to be stored in the clear.

      And after the first fine of $250,000 for losing passwords stored in the clear that entire system is going to be re-evaluated.

      That was my only point: The headline and article indicates the FTC fined them because that information was stored in the clear, not gross negligence on the part of the web designer and company which allowed that information to be leaked.

      I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm saying that the decision to build the system in that specific way (including the inclusion of the SQL injection vulnerability) is based upon the limitations of the people who made that decision.

      Once you add the $250,000 fine and the chance of future fines I'm sure that they will re-visit that entire system and re-build it in such a way that passwords will be hashed.

      That is what the FTC should be punishing: Lack of code auditing, lack of access controls, etc. They should be saying the design was defective, instead of saying the data format was.

      Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that the decision to build the system in that way (lack of code auditing, lack of access controls, data format, etc) was based upon the limitations of the people making that decision back then ... and if they HAD known that they'd be slapped with a $250,000 fine for it they would have done it different.

      And I'm sure that part of that different system would have been hashed passwords.

    3. Re:Layers of problems. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... and if they HAD known that they'd be slapped with a $250,000 fine for it they would have done it different.

      I'm not convinced. A few years ago I came across a curious story about how companies dumping toxic waste into the ocean were filming themselves doing it and then attaching a check to the EPA for the fine without being contacted by the agency. As it turns out, the cost for disposing of the materials at sea was less than the cost of disposing of it properly even when the fine was assessed for every infraction -- by a considerable margin.

      So from that I learned that while a fine might seem large to me ($250,000 is not pocket change to me!), in a business sense it could mean next to nothing, or even be preferable to 'doing it right'.

      As well, the cost of that fine will not be borne by the people in charge of causing this train wreck: It will be the people who use the product. As long as there is no individual accountability, the system is fundamentally flawed -- those people can keep right on doing what they are doing, and the company will absorb and dissipate the responsibility and costs of doing so, often with impunity. Fines/punishments should only ever be levelled against the individuals responsible, which provides much greater assurances of competency and ethics than fining a company.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Layers of problems. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, in that case simply encrypt the data instead of hashing it. Storing passwords in clear text in a database is always stupid.

    5. Re:Layers of problems. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      So essentially you wish to ELIMINATE the corporate veil.

      California has almost done that. Wonder why people would rather incorporate in Nevada (which strongly respects the corporate veil) vs California? That, right there!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    6. Re:Layers of problems. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      So essentially you wish to ELIMINATE the corporate veil.

      It never should have existed in the first place. Sovereignty is reserved for countries, not corporations.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  11. Lucky me by Skapare · · Score: 1

    My password "f00/.xyzzy/.b4r" is not even close to being like one of those on the list.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  12. I know the founders/clowns by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I advised them prior to them leaving Iconix to start RockYou and shortly after they started angel round. I'm surprised they even got funding, I saw their code when they first got going -- hideously bad. It looked like little kids had created their sad PHP "infrastructure" and Flash slideshow app. They wanted help writing crontab tasks to run queries that took several minutes -- which I was able to pare down to under a second with proper query writing. Seems they had never heard of sub-selects or how to properly structure joins.

    But, they clearly had connections within the entertainment industry and hit a chord with their target market of teenage girls and "bling" for their MySpace pages. And they got lots of money for a pretty easy concept.

    Seeing them storing sensitive user data in plain text shows that not much has changed in their "core infrastructure".
    In fact, they were doing it back then too and I told them that was bullshit -- too bad they chose not to listen.
    Hopefully they've now learned how to use PHP's MCrypt Library, or at least use hashes.
    But this security failure has been going on since 2005/2006

    1. Re:I know the founders/clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We keep moving into their old buildings. I was actually unsure what they did until this article (thought they were related to the company that used to be in the complex that did radio/music promotions). I really don't see that many of them walking around anymore but they do seem to be on the young side.

      This just sounds like another rerun from the dot-com days. Someone has an idea and thinks that is all that is needed to be a high tech innovator.

    2. Re:I know the founders/clowns by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      In fact, they were doing it back then too and I told them that was bullshit -- too bad they chose not to listen.

      Still they made money, oodles of it would be left even after paying the 250K fine. And you are still posting in slashdot, "I told them so". As Scar told the mouse, "Life isn't fair".

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:I know the founders/clowns by druiid · · Score: 1

      I'm happy I didn't take a sys-admin position for them... I know of them and they know of me through the time they hosted with aplus.net... really, that should tell you something.

  13. Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by seifried · · Score: 4, Informative

    $250,000 is basically one employee for one year (say 100k *2 for overhead/etc.) plus 50k in hardware/software. Properly securing this stuff is bound to cost more than the fines, so sadly I suspect many businesses simply do the math and decide to eat the fine.

    I think Fight Club summed it up nicely:

    Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
    Woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
    Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
    Woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
    Narrator: A major one.

    1. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by zippthorne · · Score: 0

      I always thought the woman on the plane was the unreasonable one in that conversation...

      Of course they're going to use that equation. Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The fine is only one part of the settlement, and the fine is for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
      The settlement also has them required to implement and maintain a data security program, submit to security audits for 20 years (probably 17 years longer than their remaining expected lifetime), etc. That is going to cost more than the fine most likely if they actually bother to implement it (if they don't I presume they get additional fines).

    3. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And besides, it is not normal for there to be people whose only job is to do that kind of calculation. Deciding on the best use of company resources - which path has the largest expected profit over probable scenarios - is an important part of the job of every manager out there. Most of them do it by the seat of their pants, but the more important the decision, the more often the manager must justify the decision in terms of actual estimated costs and probabilities. They teach that kind of stuff at MBA courses.

    4. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Of course they're going to use that equation. Why wouldn't they?

      It fails to take into account people who don't settle immediately: court costs, damages if found guilty and public relations costs. It also fails to take into account the value of certainty vs. uncertainty in costs. And that's without all the more involved questions about whether a public recall costing X hurts the stock price more than secret payments of Y given current conditions, etc.

      Why shouldn't they?

      Well, reading "should" as a moral question, I doubt that the aggregate out-of-court settlements really capture the full cost of leaving the vehicles on the road.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which MBA school did you go to?

    6. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course they're going to use that equation. Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they?

      They wouldn't if we would rise up with our fucking torches and pitchforks, like good citizens. If that were the case, they shouldn't. Otherwise, meh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by oreaq · · Score: 2

      Right. Why in Gods name shouldn't they kill peopole if it makes them money? Killing people to make more money is just a good business decision and everyone who doesn't kill people for money is a stupid communist hippie nazi, right?

    8. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which MBA school did you go to?

      A major one.

    9. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, taking all the vehicles off the road would also be disastrous...

      The point is, at some point, you have to make a judgment of the benefit of having a thing (affordable cars, for instance) and the risk associated with having it. You have to put a value on human life, and it has to be normalized to the same units as the other factors for comparison.

      If the car companies don't do this math, they would never make another car. There are just too many ways that people can be killed in an accident, and once you go down the "if even one person is killed or injured, it's too much" road, there isn't an answer that results in the kind of mobility we currently enjoy.

      If the settlement/loss cost put too low of a weight on human life in the equation, then the argument is that the results of lawsuits are too cheap, not that the car companies shouldn't use the equation at all.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Sadly the fine is less than fixing it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Obviously, there's some danger/value tradeoff societies have to make. I'm not claiming everything has to be perfect or not exist.

      However, your claim that the recall must somehow involve junking all the cars is similarly extremist. Look at the Prius recall. A lot of other recalls are done in a rolling fashion, fixed in the dealership (so the recall may take a few weeks... that's another way of handling cost/danger tradeoffs) while the person reads a book for half an hour, and the defective part is replaced (or commonly failing part is tested to see if it needs to be replaced.

      If the settlement/loss cost put too low of a weight on human life in the equation, then the argument is that the results of lawsuits are too cheap, not that the car companies shouldn't use the equation at all.

      Well, it's an interesting collection of conflicting goals. If car companies use this equation, and the equation is accurate, then it correctly captures the costs. However, a lawsuit also has a punitive aspect... testing to see if the 5 cent savings in plastic will make the car dangerous before saving that money is something we want to incentivize. But that leads to too many recalls.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  14. equal protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok. So what about Sony 's fine. Or the veterans administration, who not only compromised such info, but has done so repeatedly? Frankly, rockyou didn't have critical info/services and is not REQUIRED BY LAW to provide greater protection than they did. The govt IS required by law to protect that VA info.

  15. Let me try a different way. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Would you be able to build a system as you described (impersonating you via login credentials to a third party) AND have that system use only hashed passwords?

    I could and my programming skills suck.

    My point being that hashing passwords does not violate any laws of physics. If they built the system in such a way that it required clear text passwords then that was a decision that they made based off of their limitations and such.

    1. Re:Let me try a different way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (impersonating you via login credentials to a third party) AND have that system use only hashed passwords
      Wat? How would that work? Genuinely curious.

    2. Re:Let me try a different way. by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      You do it via lookup: Log in with your own credentials, then if you have rights, look up a user you'd like to impersonate. This way you don't need their password at all, only your own.

    3. Re:Let me try a different way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, please describe how you would build a system that can aggregate email from multiple 3rd party POP3 email accounts using only hashed passwords. Oh, you don't get to dictate what authentication protocols the 3rd party accounts use; it's just plaintext username/passwords as per the original POP3 RFCs.

      Sometimes plaintext passwords are unavoidable. You can encrypt the fields and decrypt as needed, but that can be defeated if the attacker can download the program itself in additional to the encrypted data. You're not really making it significantly more secure, you're just moving the problem somewhere else.

    4. Re:Let me try a different way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that help you gain access, to, say, your Slashdot account through Google? You login with your Google account to google, they store your hashed Slashdot password, and...somehow use that to log you in and post?

    5. Re:Let me try a different way. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      I could and my programming skills suck.

      So does your reading comprehension. Say you login to Facebook. Okay. Login complete. One way hash is fine. Now say, Facebook had a feature where it would check your gmail account for you, just provide the password. So you provide it with your gmail account password. Now how the hell is Facebook going to login to your gmail account if it doesn't have the plain text password?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Let me try a different way. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      That's a poor example - Gmail supports OAuth. Slashdot would be a better example, as it doesn't support protocols and technologies invented after 1992.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Let me try a different way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed one point - the credentials are for a site you don't control.

    8. Re:Let me try a different way. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Not really. The point is that whatever token - whatever token - you need to hand to the remote server to establish your bone fides has to be available in a form that the remote server will accept. That means no one-way hashing, period.

      Sure, with OAuth a compromise won't reveal your actual password, which will keep it out of the hands of scripts designed to spread the pain. That's good, really good. But it won't mean that somehow, magically, your GMail account won't get hacked.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    9. Re:Let me try a different way. by isilrion · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understood what "impersonating you via login credentials to a third party" means. The solution you propose requires you to have a "master" account in the third party system that lets you access all your user's account in that third party system.

      The issue here is when the only way to authorise an action is by using your username/password. In this case, if you want someone else to do something on your behalf (say, post to twitter before twitter implemented oauth), you need to give your username/password to that someone, and that password cannot be hashed (because otherwise he wouldn't be able to retrieve it to authenticate to the service).

  16. Favorite passwords by godel_56 · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    As a refresher, here were the top 10 passwords used by RockYou users:

    123456, 12345, 123456789, Password, iloveyou, princess, rockyou, 1234567, 12345678, abc123,

    So it hardly matters if the passwords are in plaintext or not.

    " Rainbow tables? We don't need no stinking rainbow tables!"

  17. EA had better watch out. by phorm · · Score: 2

    Last time I forgot my password, their "lost password" page emailed it to me in plaintext...

    1. Re:EA had better watch out. by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Most of the "forgot password" features out there really aren't secure. I have poked holes in most of the methods I've found. I think that's just the way it is. To make it really more secure would decrease the convenience to very low levels and just piss users off.

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  18. Seems like a bizarre conclusion by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Absent any specific regulation they're making up law on a case by case basis on the fly. In short they've created a new law but only for companies who get caught losing the information. If you're a company and you do exactly the same thing but nothing goes wrong you're excused from this law.

    1. Re:Seems like a bizarre conclusion by oreaq · · Score: 1

      If you're a company and you do exactly the same thing but nothing goes wrong you're excused from this law.

      So? Only people that actually cause damage are charged and punished. What's wrong with that?

    2. Re:Seems like a bizarre conclusion by gelfling · · Score: 1

      It's not a contract, it's not a regulation, it's not a pre existing law, it's not a warranty and they didn't make a specific promise of what or how they would accomplish this. So what's happened effectively is that they've criminalized marketing hype. Well ok let's do that. Be careful what you wish for though.

    3. Re:Seems like a bizarre conclusion by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Nulla poena sine lege. I wasn't arguing that. I was just nitpicking that the particular consequence you mentioned ("If you're a company and you do exactly the same thing but nothing goes wrong you're excused from this law.") is in fact not a bad thing at all.

    4. Re:Seems like a bizarre conclusion by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Which is more or less logically consistent. It's also a good case for having no regulation at all and simply waiting for all the lawsuits after for instance, your food products kill people, etc. A real libertarian view of the world.

  19. If only they'd used ROT13... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd have avoided this fine.

  20. Common/best practices for personal data by sgifford · · Score: 1

    Most applications I've worked with have stored passwords hashed and salted and stored credit card data offsite or not at all, but have kept other sorts of personal data (address, phone, etc.) in the database in plaintext.

    I've always reasoned that encrypting the data is of little value, since the decryption keys would have to be on the server, and a server compromise would give the keys along with the data. This case is interesting though, since it seems only the database was compromised, so encrypted data in the database with keys outside of the database would have provided some protection.

    I can come up with lots of simple schemes for encrypting personal data in the database, but what I'm wondering is, how is this typically handled? Is it common to encrypt this sort of data? If so using what techniques for encryption and key management? Are there some well-known best practices that I haven't come across?

    Thanks!

    ----Scott.

    1. Re:Common/best practices for personal data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you write a system that holds the decryption key in ram only? Have the program require you to enter it as part of the startup, and never write it to disk.

    2. Re:Common/best practices for personal data by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      And every time you bounced a machine, you'd have to scramble to hand-key in a long, complex key that you weren't allowed by policy to even write down somewhere?

      Bzzzt, thank you, please try again.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:Common/best practices for personal data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said you can't write it down? You could even put it on a sticky note on the monitor. The point is that you can't read it by hacking into an internet facing machine.

    4. Re:Common/best practices for personal data by sgifford · · Score: 1

      RAM of a running process is accessible to root via the debugger, so doesn't really provide better security than a file only root can read, although it may slow an attacker down a bit or foil a dim-witted attacker. As others have mentioned, there is also some systems management difficulty if services do not function until a password is entered into them.

      At any rate, lots of interesting schemes are possible, but I was wondering if any of them were in wide use?

      Thanks,

      ------Scott.

  21. Hint: You need some salt in your game by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    Normal hashing is NOT enough to secure user passwords since anyone getting access will simply compare password fields to common hash values; e.g. MD5("12345"). Add another column to your password table containing a randomly generated string (the salt and it doesn't have to be that long). Then append or prepend that value to the user's password, hash, and store that hash value in the back end. Of course, you need to repeat the process to perform password validation and you will permanently "lose" the password, but your passwords are secure.

    There are other algorithms you can pile on to obfuscate data as you see fit.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  22. Doesn't everybody store passwords in plain text? by Shompol · · Score: 0

    I have lost count of the number of times when I recover a forgotten password and the website emails my exact password "reminder". At one point I was "reminded" by a rep over the phone. And even these are a small percentage of total, because not revealing my password to me does not guarantee that it is not stored in plain text anyway.

    I wish all of them were fined $250K. We need a new "cyber-security" agency, with agents nosing password stores and issuing "cyber-tickets" for infractions.

  23. How to report to FTC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would I go about reporting to the FTC about a website storing passwords in the clear? or do they only care if the passwords are leaked? There is a forum I use regarding a medical practice management system which emails users their username and password in the clear when you sign up and I've been trying to tell them to store a hash instead of the cleartext password for about 3 years now...

  24. What is the advantage of hashing? by dshk · · Score: 1

    I am yet to understand why it is better if the password is hashed. If the attacker gains access to the password database, then he can do anything with the server and the data of the users. He does not need the password of individual users at all.

    Encryption of non-password data does not help anything, because the server must be able to decrypt those data. If the server is able to decrypt them, than the attacker on the server will also be able to decrypt them easily.

    The attacker can only use the user password for one purpose: he can use it to enter other accounts of the user. But only if the user has the same password everywhere. In which case the user has already given up any security. That is the same as having a password of 123456. If the attacker is on the server he can eavesdrop on the communication and slowly retrieve the passwords of all users anyway, regardless of hashing, within a few days.

    1. Re:What is the advantage of hashing? by sgifford · · Score: 1

      The advantage is that many people use the same password on multiple systems, so revealing a plaintext password to, say, Slashdot may also reveal your bank password. A hashed password can't be used to directly log into another account, though it can be cracked by a determined attacker if the password is simple. A salted and hashed password vastly increases the time required for an attacker to crack a hashed password, to the point where it is infeasible unless the password is very simple.

      Of course everybody knows (or should know) that using the same password for Slashdot and your bank is a bad idea (you could have a bank support rep using up your precious karma!), but it is still very common, and it's irresponsible for a developer to expose their users' passwords if they have made this common mistake.

    2. Re:What is the advantage of hashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh, it's impossible for a company to have multiple databases containing user info (each database containing unique information, i.e. not simply copies)? If the passwords are hashed and the attacker gains access to one db, he still can't get at the others' info.

      Also, yes, attackers could eavesdrop on communications if they had control of the server. However, many data breaches of this kind occur when some employee loses a laptop or other device with a db data dump on it and an unscrupulous character happens upon said device.

    3. Re:What is the advantage of hashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One point: salting a hashed password doesn't increase the time required to break a single password, because the salt is usually stored in the database along with the rest of the info. The value of salting is that it vastly increases the required time to break ALL the passwords in a db. Attacking a single salted pw takes the same amount of time as attacking an entire database of unsalted hashes.

    4. Re:What is the advantage of hashing? by sgifford · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks for the clarification, it only increases the time by preventing the use of rainbow tables (or, nowadays, simply googling the hash).

  25. That'll teach em by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

    2.5 cents per user credential lost.

    I feel kind of bad for RockYou, massively over the top fines like that are just to send a message to other companies [/sarcasm]

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  26. Then pay us like lawyers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have always thought coders should be paid like lawyers.. when we start becoming accountable for peoples privacy we should get paid for being *responsible*.
    As long as they keep paying peanuts everyone is just going to get monkeys.

    1. Re:Then pay us like lawyers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this is so true

  27. How eBay handles applications by tepples · · Score: 1

    Consider how the eBay API handles applications: Each application developer signs an agreement with eBay, and eBay provides a shared secret that identifies that application. The application directs the eBay user to a page on eBay.com that asks for the user's name and password, and then eBay returns a session cookie to that application. This cookie identifies the user and is valid only for that application. Then the problem becomes how to protect the application's shared secret from people who have physical access to the server or to the end-user devices running the application.

  28. For sites not supporting OAuth by tepples · · Score: 1

    When retrieving resources from a third party on the user's behalf, they need to display the user's password to the third party if it hasn't fully implemented OAuth or something analogous. Twitter and Amazon support OAuth, but several other services do not.

  29. When you have to reverse the transformation by tepples · · Score: 1

    But you need to be able to reverse the transformation if you have to provide this password when interacting with a third party on the user's behalf. One such password is a taxpayer ID used for communication with national revenue authorities.

  30. Encrypt with what key? by tepples · · Score: 1

    simply encrypt the data instead of hashing it

    With what key? The application accessing the database needs the key in order to encrypt or decrypt text, and anyone with physical or otherwise administrative access can retrieve that key.

  31. Pre-existing law by tepples · · Score: 1

    it's not a pre existing law [...] So what's happened effectively is that they've criminalized marketing hype

    I was under the impression that false advertising had been a crime at least as long as I've been alive.

    1. Re:Pre-existing law by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Only if you definitively say something that's not true such as "This pill will cure cancer". If you say "We will protect you" the statement is sufficiently vague that a common sense and legal view of it is not that that vendor will under all circumstances keep you safe from all threats at all times.

  32. Okay, you're an idiot. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Say you login to Facebook. Okay. Login complete. One way hash is fine. Now say, Facebook had a feature where it would check your gmail account for you, just provide the password.

    Yeah, you might want to look up what "third party" means because you don't seem to understand that it means exactly what you just posted.

    So you provide it with your gmail account password. Now how the hell is Facebook going to login to your gmail account if it doesn't have the plain text password?

    Simple, encrypt it and store the encrypted value.
    What's the encryption key? It's based off of your password on MY system (which IS hashed and salted). So I never need to store it.

    You login on MY system and your gmail password gets decrypted and sent to gmail to log you in over there.

  33. I've actually SEEN it happening GirlInTraining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw the same thing with a MAJOR pharmaceutical company while working over the summer for them doing maintenance during academia summer break.

    One day @ work, my pal Ernie (co-worker but long-time acquaintance before it, he got me the summer job, paid well for kids I felt) & I were sitting by a stream that runs by the place, & saw this pipe hidden in a patch of shrubs that was spewing out this fluorescent green awful smelling crap right into said stream. The head security guard came up on us (we could have gotten into MAJOR hassles for being there because there was a sign we ignored to go there to grab a quick cigarette break) & told us "You didn't see that" & took us from there. Luckily, he knew my Father in the 1950's & they used to play poker together, so he let us be, but... he told us pretty much what you did: This company REGULARLY GETS BUSTED FOR THIS, but pays the fine instead of doing the right thing of disposing it properly, instead.

    OH, this gets better - keep reading!

    MANY years later, I get a job coding for a company that I always thought was "doing good" & their main function is to go into courts as an 'expert hazmat waste disposal' company, or whatever, and with a plan to clean up crap like I saw @ the major pharmaceuticals company dumping crap into the stream I noted earlier.

    Well... turns out, ALL THEY DO, is make up some bullshit scheme that NOBODY EVER FOLLOWS, they get paid for it (WELL I MIGHT ADD) & the same game continues infinitum - instead of cleaning up waste properly, because it costs more, they just pay the fines and keep right in dumping it into the local water systems/streams/lakes, etc.-et al... crazy, & sad!

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, I have to be BLUNT about this but... I've lived on this planet nearly 1/2 a century now, & I've NEVER seen it as screwed up as it is now - is it ME, or is the world majorly "f'd up" or what, and in TONS of ways? apk

  34. Nobody pays liars any mind Rasperin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0