Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

There were other (non tape-related) types of copy-protection as well. I remember one game in particular called ACE that had the Lenslok copy-protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenslok From Wikipedia: "The Lenslok device was essentially a row of prisms arranged vertically in a plastic holder. Before the game started, a two-letter code was displayed on ...


1

Some software vendors partner with BIOS makers (e.g. Absolute) so that even if an operating system is re-installed, on network connection, the BIOS may be able to send back relevant information. Many of these products are gimmicky, for example LoJack can be blocked at a firewall/network level that will disallow it from phoning home. These types of software ...


1

This can very well be a concern. Different browsers handle it different ways. Chrome passwords on Windows are not stored in some file in AppData; they're stored using Windows's DPAPI, which means that they're encrypted with a key derived from your Windows password, so they're secure if someone doesn't have access to your Windows account. However, while it's ...


1

It would not be advised, especially not on any public online resources. If the revocation keys gets in the wrong hands, someone can revoke your keys without your consent or knowledge.


5

Just use TLS, it's what it was meant for: securely send data between two parties across an untrusted channel. Should you want additional protection, there are two ways to solve this problem that spring to my mind: Use a password to encrypt the symmetric key Use a token such as an OTT through SMS or generated using a smartcard and external cardreader ...


0

For android phones, there is a credential storage that allows you to store keys. It runs as a system daemon and uses AES to encrypt the keys. The keys are tied to the UID of the app that created it so other rogue apps are unable to access these keys. For iOS, there is a similar keychain which serves a similar purpose. It is also encrypted and sandboxed so ...


1

Bob Brown has covered most of the salient points in his answer but I did want to point out that there is one significant disadvantage: Complexity. You are increasing the complexity of your application to some degree, lesser (in the case of adding a pepper to the hash where you need to think about key management as well as storage of password hashes and ...


4

First of all, every stored password should be hashed with a different pseudo-random salt. Second, SHA-256 is not appropriate for storing passwords; instead, you want to use a key stretching algorithm, as has already been mentioned. There is a lot more detail at Crackstation. An encrypted hash is also called a keyed hash, and the key is sometimes called a ...


3

Provided that you mean Hash first (BCrypt) and then encrypt the hash, security should not be weakened, yet you are not improving security either. Encryption is, by definition, a reversible scheme. Since there really is no use-case for which you would require the decryption in this case, encryption is the wrong tool for the job. If you are looking use a ...


-2

Encrypting the hash is in the first place just another hash function. With respect to potential collisions it is as good or bad as the original hash function (encryption is reversible by decryption and does not add more collisions). When you can keep the keys (both for encryption and decryption) secret, it adds security because a brute force attack on the ...


0

The checkbox in the screenshot refers to the Firefix Password Manager without Master Password, although it doesn't check and it works in both cases. I guess most of the time people use the password manager in Firefox without master password. They login to a site, Firefox offers to store the password, they agree, and that's it. This is the use case for most ...


1

In my opinion, Lastpass is referring to the Firefox password manager insecure when the user is not using master password for Firefox. Which won't be apples-to-apples comparison. Firefox uses 3DES for storing passwords and in case master password is not set, null ("") is used, which is insecure for sure. To read in detail about how Chrome, IE and Firefox ...


0

I wouldn't consider this a major security issue as the values are limited to only your system's access to the third party sites. It is less desirable, but the values can be easily invalidated without any bleeding in to other systems that access the same services. It certainly doesn't hurt, and is even wise, to encrypt it, but you would have to encrypt it ...



Top 50 recent answers are included