Slashdot Mirror
Why Are We Still Using Passwords? (securityledger.com)
Here's some surprising news from the Akamia Edge conference. chicksdaddy writes:
[E]xecutives at some of the U.S.'s leading corporations agreed that the much maligned password won't be abandoned any time soon, even as data breaches and follow-on attacks make passwords more susceptible than ever to abuse, the Security Ledger reports. "We reached the end of needing passwords maybe seven years ago, but we still use them," said Steve Winterfeld, Director of Cybersecurity, at clothing retailer Nordstrom. "They're still the primary layer of defense."
"It's hard to kill them," noted Shalini Mayor, who is a Senior Director at Visa Inc. "The question is what to replace them with." This, even though the cost of using passwords is high and getting higher, as sophisticated attacks attempt to compromise legitimate accounts using so-called "credential stuffing" techniques, which use automated password guessing attacks against web-based applications... Stronger and more reliable alternatives to passwords already exist, but the obstacles to using them are often prohibitive. Shalani Mayor said Visa is "looking at" biometric technologies like Apple's TouchID as a tool for making payments securely. Such technologies -- from fingerprint scans to facial and retinal scans -- promise more secure and reliable factors than alphanumeric passwords, the executives agreed. But customers often resist the technologies or find them error prone or too difficult to use.
"It's hard to kill them," noted Shalini Mayor, who is a Senior Director at Visa Inc. "The question is what to replace them with." This, even though the cost of using passwords is high and getting higher, as sophisticated attacks attempt to compromise legitimate accounts using so-called "credential stuffing" techniques, which use automated password guessing attacks against web-based applications... Stronger and more reliable alternatives to passwords already exist, but the obstacles to using them are often prohibitive. Shalani Mayor said Visa is "looking at" biometric technologies like Apple's TouchID as a tool for making payments securely. Such technologies -- from fingerprint scans to facial and retinal scans -- promise more secure and reliable factors than alphanumeric passwords, the executives agreed. But customers often resist the technologies or find them error prone or too difficult to use.
Biometrics are not more secure than passwords - theyâ(TM)re less secure but sufficiently more convenient that you can convince people to use them.
We still use passwords because theyâ(TM)re still the most secure way of authenticating your identity when combined with a second factor.
If I ever get arrested or stopped at the airport, my phone could be unlocked by forcing my finger on the button or scanning my face(iPhone X). So without a password, biometrics can trivially compromise your security against state/pseudostate actors when they have physical access to you. At least with a passcode they have to observe some sort of due process to coerce you.
The best method of authentication, as far I I've experienced, is a physical token (keycard). Worst case scenario, I don't notice it's missing after two days (Friday evening till Monday morning). Chances are I've dropped in a city centre rather than haven it exploited by an unknown agency. Even still, they;ve only got the physical credentials of a low-tier employee. On-site physical access is still required.
Clearly we need to replace passwords with a chip or mark or tattoo in the palms of the hands and on the foreheads / retinas, etc. Then we need to make sure that people can't buy or sell without taking these marks on themselves. Naturally cash will have to be eliminated. This way we can control and identify what the people spend their money on and we can use this information to further oppress and bind them down into abject bondage and suffering. Yep, that's the ticket. No more anonymity, all must bow down and accept the will of Evil. Every citizen a slave.
"A jackboot stamping on a human face forever"-Orwell or Huxley, i forget and am too lazy to search.
Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
We use passwords because it's something you know AND SOMETHING YOU CAN CHANGE WHEN COMPROMISED.
You cannot change your fingerprints or other biometric data so when it's compromised or when technology advances in a way which allows the biometric sensors to be fooled then you are completely and totally stuffed. :-(
Do the people proposing this ever have _ANY_ real world experience at all ?
Oh, and yes, using biometric data allows intelligence agencies, who will likely be able to obtain that information in various ways, to pretend to be you when they want to compromise systems you control.
Instead of breaking in and stealing passwords, break in and steal all the biometric files. Your fingerprint may be unique, but to identify you I have to have a copy. If someone steals that copy, you are now compromised in a way you can't correct. You can't change your fingerprint every 60 days.
1. They aren't tied to biometrics, which once compromised, aren't easily changed. Plus, many people find it instinctively invasive, possibly because of that reason. In contrast, passwords/x509 are easily changed when when compromised or forgotten.
2. Biometrics work as authenticators but not as authorizers.. Nothing stops someone from duplicating your biometric properties (pic of your fingerprints or irises/face) without your authorization. Not so with a password.
The answers are pretty obvious.
Firstly, we still use them because there's no reasonable replacement. Duh.
Secondly, there's no reasonable replacement because of the way our computers work.
Passwords are essentially information held in a system outside the computer (your head), that can be used for verification. The problem is that humans aren't really good at remembering passwords, and we need so many of them, and they are infrequently needed.
All attempts at using computers to solve this issue have run afoul of the "general purpose computer" problem: because our computers do not address security properly, we cannot guarantee what software is running on the local hardware. We cannot guarantee the security of passwords held on the computer, or in an encrypted file, because it's so easy to download and run malware. No one keeps track of all the things run on the computer, and we can't even trust the people who supposedly *do* keep track.
One reasonable solution is to use hardware specific to the purpose that's *not* a general purpose computer.
If you had a piece of hardware - a thumb drive, for example - that was *not* general purpose and could not download and execute code, then that could be made pretty secure. It could hold a person's private key, have functions to encrypt, decrypt, and sign documents, and also pass out the public key. It could also download and install new keys, with the understanding that the base functions could not be changed.
There's some details involved: you need a way to securely backup the data, and you need a way to securely recover the data in various situations. Mostly, you need to save the data somewhere safe and write down a master password (one, a PIN of sorts) somewhere else.
The Mooltipass is pretty close. It generates strong passwords for each web site registration, and will fill in the fields for you when you go to log in.
That's not the complete solution, however. It should *encrypt* the password with the user's private key and the site's public key so that no one can view it(*), or even better use a zero-knowledge authentication process.
If we could somehow begin using a fixed-program computer - say, something the size of a credit-card calculator that requires a pin and that holds the information for *all* the cards in your wallet - we could get away from passwords.
We would also have a single point on which we could put *all* our effort to make secure.
Hypothetically, that one card would reduce credit card fraud to near zero. When you use the card you enter your PIN on the keypad, and the card generates a ShopSafe number tied to your credit account, valid for one purchase.
Take a look at the badges at high-tech conferences these days. It seems like the hardware shouldn't be that hard or expensive.
Could this be the next killer product from Apple? A hand-held thingy that's secure and ultra-convenient, that you use for payments (IRL and online) and password entry?
(*) Yes, ssh is not absolutely secure. Did you think all those cert authorities in your browser have been properly vetted?
think of them as a mutable biometric. it's biometric because its stored in your brain. It's mutable because you can change it. it can't actually be stolen from you if you don't give it up or write it down.
it's only when you go to transmit it that the problem occurs.
When you look at this this way, then you see that things like finger prints or retina have the same problems and worse. they are not mutable, they can be taken from you without you knowing it, and the transmission layer is still vulnerable
Nearly always, your first solution to a problem is the best one. Not always of course or there would be no need to research and study. But people have been using passwords for milennia because they are an effective tool that works from giving something to the sentry, to logging into google.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
people who post to slashdot from iphones and such get all of their apostrophes turned into å(TM)t â(TM)t
THis is 2017, it's possible to parse plain text and unicode correctly now I have read.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
accident damage, surgery, degredation of the eye are some of the ways you can be locked out of a biometric identifier. as the population ages, this is an issue that you need to think about. I will not use bios for this reason, as for some reason, I am not getting younger and more invulnerable.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
>"Why Are We Still Using Passwords? "
Because they are cheap, generally convenient, proven, and understood. Passwords actually work quite well *IF* they are managed correctly. And despite the summary, dictionary attacks are generally useless when servers are configured correctly.
For high security, when necessary, combining a password with a token of some sort is extremely effective.