Slashdot Mirror


Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

HughPickens.com writes Micah Lee writes at The Intercept that coming up with a good passphrase by just thinking of one is incredibly hard, and if your adversary really is capable of one trillion guesses per second, you'll probably do a bad job of it. It turns out humans are a species of patterns, and they are incapable of doing anything in a truly random fashion. But there is a method for generating passphrases that are both impossible for even the most powerful attackers to guess, yet very possible for humans to memorize. First, grab a copy of the Diceware word list, which contains 7,776 English words — 37 pages for those of you printing at home. You'll notice that next to each word is a five-digit number, with each digit being between 1 and 6. Now grab some six-sided dice (yes, actual real physical dice), and roll them several times, writing down the numbers that you get. You'll need a total of five dice rolls to come up with each word in your passphrase. Using Diceware, you end up with passphrases that look like "cap liz donna demon self", "bang vivo thread duct knob train", and "brig alert rope welsh foss rang orb". If you want a stronger passphrase you can use more words; if a weaker passphrase is ok for your purpose you can use less words. If you choose two words for your passphrase, there are 60,466,176 different potential passphrases. A five-word passphrase would be cracked in just under six months and a six-word passphrase would take 3,505 years, on average, at a trillion guesses a second.

After you've generated your passphrase, the next step is to commit it to memory.You should write your new passphrase down on a piece of paper and carry it with you for as long as you need. Each time you need to type it, try typing it from memory first, but look at the paper if you need to. Assuming you type it a couple times a day, it shouldn't take more than two or three days before you no longer need the paper, at which point you should destroy it. "Simple, random passphrases, in other words, are just as good at protecting the next whistleblowing spy as they are at securing your laptop," concludes Lee. "It's a shame that we live in a world where ordinary citizens need that level of protection, but as long as we do, the Diceware system makes it possible to get CIA-level protection without going through black ops training."

25 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diceware is a great recommendation, but you're missing one key consideration: password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password. The Apple iCloud hack is one of the few in recent memory where a password-related breach wasn't tied to password reuse. What happens most of the time is that a site is vulnerable to SQL injection gets their users table stolen, and "bad guys" use that information to try accounts on related sites. If the compromised website was using a bad (i.e. fast) password hashing algorithm, then having a good password will protect you a little, but you're playing with fire. Password cracking techniques have been advancing exponentially, as has GPU power. But if this site is using reversible encryption or storing passwords in plaintext (which still happens with alarming frequency) then all your other accounts are at risk from the one breach regardless of how great your password is. Of course, if they're using a good password algorithm like PBKDF2 or bcrypt, even a mediocre password will be relatively safe. But what are the chances that every site you've registered with is using a good password algorithm? Probably zero. How can you check the password storing technique of a site you're about to register with? You can't.

    Yeah, you could make an algorithm to modify your password across sites so that you can memorize it yet it'll be different, but as "bad guys" combine information from multiple leaks, any algorithm you come up with will be vulnerable to reverse engineering. Especially if your online identity is valuable. The real solution is to use password management software like KeePass, LastPass, or 1Password. Lock your password program with your good password from Diceware, and use unique, truly random passwords for all the websites you've registered on.

    1. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by mlts · · Score: 5, Informative

      I prefer 2FA when possible. Even a very tough password means nothing if by some means, it gets sniffed by some keylogger, or the password database on a cloud provider gets brute-forced.

      For storage where one is using a passphrase for encryption, as opposed to authentication, I like using cryptographic tokens. TrueCrypt used to work with a PKCS#11 library so I could store a keyfile on a set of Aladdin/SafeNet eTokens. This not just made the key immune to brute force guessing... someone who physically possesses the token has three guesses of my unlocking passphrase before the token locks itself forever and zeroes out the stored keyfile. This also works with Symantec's PGP version, except that generates a public/private keypair, the private keypair always remaining on the token, while the public part is used for the file/drive encryption.

      If 2FA isn't possible, then as above, some mechanism to help with password reuse is very wise. This is useful just in case some website decides to store passwords in plain text, so a person's secure "correct horse battery staple" is now compromised and added to every blackhat's brute forcing library.

    2. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by PetiePooo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password.

      The best of both worlds: use a six-to-eight word diceware password for your password manager, and generate a long, random password for everything else.

    3. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by AikonMGB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password.

      The best of both worlds: use a six-to-eight word diceware password for your password manager, and generate a long, random password for everything else.

      This. I also use a separate diceware password for my primary email. That way if someone does manage to break/steal my password manager database, I still have secure and sole access to my email, which many sites will require for you to re-gain control of your account.

    4. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      I stopped using Groklaw back in the day because they started requiring excessively complex passwords. They seemed to feel that their forums were rather important, when in fact the only really important part was what people could read, not what they would post.

      I'm sure that most of us would be upset if our accounts on various forums or bulletin board systems were compromised, but it wouldn't be life-altering for the vast majority of us. Social Media that's designed to avoid anonymity like Facebook would be worse but still ultimately doesn't affect one's bottom-line, but things like banks and e-mail services where everyon's stuff ultimately consoldiates are much more important.

      I wish that we could trust central ID systems, where we could create an account on a forum site with a unique user ID and then link that user ID to a central authentication database so that our central credentials give us acces via that unique user ID, but I just don't trust the authentication databases. I'm already leery enough of Active Directory that I don't use work passwords anywhere else to begin with, but companies providing such a service don't necessarily know what they're doing, and they're probably too willin to hand over information for what sites people would need authentication to as well.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, when you're traveling you use the mobile app to access your password database, read it off your phone, and then you type it into the infected computer. No need to be stupid about it.

    6. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by ghmh · · Score: 5, Funny

      "correct horse battery staple"

      That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

    7. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your personal email is the most important account you have for the reason you set forth: you can use it to reset passwords to all of your other accounts! That's why I use Google Mail along with the FIDO U2F dongle. This makes my email really secure.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    8. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

      "luggage"

      Wow! That's the combination to the staple holding the energy source to my battery-powered equine robot -- the right one, not the wrong one.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Use a password manager and you:
      - Cannot access your accounts without the password manager. Like when you've had everything stolen at an airport and need to transfer some money.
      - Lose access to all your passwords in one fell swoop when you lose your password manager, or move to a system where that (by then) old piece of software won't run.
      - Lose all your passwords in one fell swoop to any blackhat who manages to brute force or key log your password manager.

      Password managers defeat much of the security of having passwords.

    10. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by pspahn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is pretty much what I do. I personally don't like all the generic words, and instead use variations of a similar pattern. I have several main patterns that I can determine which one to use based on a rule I know that takes the site's name into account. This is my base password.

      Then I take the site's name and apply another rule to it. This becomes my salt.

      Together they become a very complex password that is unique for each site and yet very easy for me to remember. An example (of course not close to what I use, but you get the idea) for Slashdot would be:

      Slashdot.org - TLD is org so we use Gro.dotSlash as the hash + 19 (slashdot begins w/S, the 19th letter) + someone I love's DOB 9-18-80, so the full password is Gro.dotSlash1991880?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  2. Yes, but.... by djbckr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about the sites that restrict the length of the password? The only thing I have to say to them is, "You're doing it wrong".

    1. Re:Yes, but.... by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's be a bit more specific about that.

      If they're restricting the length to something like 8 or 12 or 16 instead of 128 or 256 then they are PROBABLY not hashing the passwords.

      Which means that your password is PROBABLY being stored in plain text (or possibly encrypted). NEITHER of which are acceptable methods today.

  3. Still not allowed by many places. by timrod · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many websites, especially those designed to be more secure (banking, education, employment) still require passwords in a certain form (usually requiring some combination of caps, numbers, and special characters) and don't allow passwords like these.

  4. Re:Wait a sec by hatemonger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly the opposite: "Encryption works" was one of the key points made by Edward Snowden. The NSA found it much easier to just bypass encryption. There are some instances where we suspect the NSA has had a hand weakening or backdooring some algorithms (like recommending odd seed values for elliptic curve cryptography) but nothing definitive.

  5. Re:Wait a sec by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    ROT13 is pretty safe, especially if it's used twice.

  6. 6 sided dice? by 31eq · · Score: 5, Informative

    makepassphrase()
    {
    # Requires GNU sort
    grep -vF "'s" /usr/share/dict/words |
    sort -R --random-source=/dev/urandom | head -${1-5} |
    while read word
    do
    printf "%s " "$word"
    done
    echo
    }

  7. change your username by jd142 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I forget where I first read it, but this sounds like a good workaround. Pick a nice secure-as-you-want password. But each website gets a different username. It sounds like most attacks are of the kind "joe_bob uses P4$$word on amazon, let's see if joe_bob uses P4$$word on this banking site too." They don't seem to be looking to see if joe_bob_amazon is the same account as joe_bob_wellsfargo. Or you could be joe_a_bob and joe_wf_bob.

    Even better is if you have some control over your email accounts. They are probably smart enough to see joe.bob@gmail is j.o.e.bob@gmail(although that does let you filter incoming mail a little easier). But if you have control over the domain you have a catch all address and be me_amazon@myplace.com and me_wellsfargo@myplace.com.

  8. Assuming fair dice by hawguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    This procedure assumes fair, unbiased dice. For years, the NSA has required precise machining of dice to generate predictable rolls. Once someone cracks the code, Casinos will lose billions.

    What, other than precision machining, would explain why plastic dice with a materials cost of pennies cost over $2/each?

  9. Re:xkcd... by duranaki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, they read the comic, but then thought, "Damn, thinking of random words is hard! If only we could make a 37 page document and use dice to pick words!" And then someone else shouted, "Genius! I own shares in Yahtzee! This will totally increase sales!"

  10. Re:How about... by mattventura · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would they go through the trouble of reverse enigneering your password system when there's thousands of other people who just use the same exact password everywhere? Unless someone is trying to specifically target you, it's usually sufficient to simply not be the low-hanging fruit. In case of these large password leaks, what they're probably doing is something like this:
    1. Take every username (or email) and password combination
    2. Through automated means, check if they are valid on other websites
    3. Record the ones that worked and abuse/sell those as well.

  11. Prepare to restore from backup often by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    someone who physically possesses the token has three guesses of my unlocking passphrase before the token locks itself forever and zeroes out the stored keyfile

    If fat-fingering your passphrase thrice will make your data permanently inaccessible, then you better have damn good backups and a damn good data plan with which to restore them when and where you need your data.

    1. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a third option: An admin passphrase that is a lot longer than my user passphrase, but had more retry attempts. That way, if the short passphrase gets typoed, I can still unlock the device with the admin one.

      You are right about backups... that is why I have three of the USB tokens, just in case.

    2. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the kids locked my wife out of her iPhone. She put on a password, not thinking it through. The kids kept trying to get in past all the warnings and such, and not reading anything they were doing. It was only after it stopped letting them try to log in that they gave up. I didn't put a password on my phone because the version of Android I'm using makes 911 a 1-click when you are on the login screen. After having to say "sorry misdial" a few times (can't just hang up when you realize what happened, or the police come looking for you), I removed the password, so that 911 isn't a single click away.

    3. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but even if the hash seems hard to any human being, the way it was generated doesn't use enough entropy. Using the website fqdn or whatever combination reduces significantly the entropy, coupled with your master password in a predictable way and then generating the hash isn't sufficient at my humble opinion to say this is a secure way to generate a password. In particular, if someone has access to the resulting hash for many different sites. The result must be predictable, hence, the combination of the orignal factors cannot change.

      This isn't better than a long passphrase.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!