32,694 reputation
23584
bio website
location Rensselaer, NY
age 31
visits member for 2 years, 11 months
seen yesterday

Nov
5
comment Untrusted central server and self-hosted/local client
but how do you know which client is good and which is bad if there are both out there? You can assume that the first client is good, but how do you know that it doesn't have bugs that the new client actually needs to fix to remain secure? Fundamentally, if you don't trust the author of the software, you can't trust the software. Distributing it so everyone has a different copy makes things worse, not better since now you have a bunch of different parties with potentially incompatible clients all able to claim to be the secure one. Trusting the wrong party in any case results in compromise.
Nov
4
comment Untrusted central server and self-hosted/local client
All that matters is that the server not be able to access the user's data with it's level of access.
Nov
4
comment Untrusted central server and self-hosted/local client
at that point, why not just work with a server that doesn't contain the information that is needed to access the data but is still trusted to provide routing and handling and code. The keys can remain local, but the code itself can be provided from the server since at some point you have to start trusting. If you don't trust those operating the server to write secure code, then you don't trust them to write code you run locally either, so the code being provided doesn't matter as long as we know the server is authentic.
Nov
4
comment Untrusted central server and self-hosted/local client
ok, sure, but you still need to get the client from somewhere and that server ends up being trusted since it is the source of the client. The only way around that would be to use existing technologies and let someone build their own client based on an open protocol.
Nov
4
comment Untrusted central server and self-hosted/local client
If you don't trust the server providing the client, what is to prevent the server from altering the client to send the information back to it? If they have to get the client elsewhere, why limit it to web technologies when native can do a far more secure and efficient job?
Oct
25
comment Securing an automatic updater
This discounts the possibility of the server itself being compromised. If the attacker can make the update server their personal playground, then you still don't want all the clients to be made vulnerable.
Oct
21
comment How can these spam emails be accessing email accounts on respected domains?
@LuckyLuke - then I would contact both. They are probably hacking master accounts on rodgers and then creating an account with a different version of the same name. Contact both of them and they will shut down the accounts in question. It's all you can really do.
Oct
21
comment How can these spam emails be accessing email accounts on respected domains?
The other site is probably just a spoof. It's unlikely that they have an actual account there.
Oct
21
comment How can these spam emails be accessing email accounts on respected domains?
@LuckyLuke - it would be good to inform Rodgers. They should have some kind of abuse address that you can send information to or you could just try abuse@rodgers.com It might or might not be accurate, but it's a fairly typical address for such purposes.
Oct
7
comment How can I be secure with a global salt?
@Toto - well if you can throw enough processing power at it, you can randomly search users logins running their password against the bad hashes when they login or change passwords, but that's far less efficient. You can also run ongoing tests of the identified bad password list against existing unique salts to identify problems once they are first detected.
Oct
7
comment How can I be secure with a global salt?
I also described what you need to do, for a new user, take their provided password and hash it with each of the known bad user salts and see if it matches. Once you identify a password of a bad user (based on their second attempt to register with it) then you can store that password as bad and remove the salt from the list as the password is no longer unknown.
Oct
7
comment How can I be secure with a global salt?
@Toto - you are reducing the complexity by orders of magnitude by not salting though. If you are going to store the result of any global salt, you might as well not salt at all for any storage as that is the point of failure and has the least complexity to solve. The idea of a salt is that it requires a separate attack on every password. A global salt/no salt allows for all weak passwords to be found in one fell swoop. The unique salts prevent the weak passwords from being easily identified.
Sep
28
comment What is the most secure operating system out there?
@Mr.Happy - it would be effectively impossible to detect. It could be triggered off of any random operation sequence that would result in the CPU executing privileged instructions without the OS knowing about it. It would be most effective to compromise the CPU itself though. Other methods would be more difficult, so if the CPU is trustworthy you have at least some protection since the CPU won't cooperate with the hijacking then (but some data might still be accessible, such as dumping RAM values via DMA).
Sep
13
comment Can you sniff broadband connections? And how you secure that?
@evening - wireless encryption I already answered. Encryption won't protect you from other people who are legitimately on the network unless you use enterprise level encryption (which is hard to setup) and authentication just establishes that people should be able to be on the network.
Sep
13
comment Can you sniff broadband connections? And how you secure that?
wired would be fine as long as the network is switched, which pretty much all are now. You would have to look at the documentation for the routers and switches that are used in the network to see if it is switched or not, but most are now.
Sep
13
comment Can you sniff broadband connections? And how you secure that?
@evening - it is probably your easiest bet for a wireless connection if you don't trust the other people on the wireless network, but at that point it brings up the question, why are they on your wireless network.
Sep
13
comment Can you sniff broadband connections? And how you secure that?
@evening - you can make it so that wifi uses different encryption per connection, but this requires user level accounts for connecting to the wireless and the use of the enterprise levels of WPA or similar. It is also non-trivial to setup. With a common password, anyone with access to the network will be able to get at the contents of everyone else (on the wireless network)'s packets as they go across the wireless network.
Sep
13
comment Can you sniff broadband connections? And how you secure that?
@evening - you lost me now. If you are asking about people on a wired network within the home network, a good switching based router should isolate each system and only pass along information that needs to go to each IP internally. As long as it isn't going through any hubs (which send to all connections) you should be fine internally.
Sep
13
comment Double encryption with different keys
that is incorrect, it will still be easily detectable even if not human readable. It is fairly easy to pull encryption keys out of compiled code.
Sep
13
comment Double encryption with different keys
Do you care if the users of the program can get at it? The SDK and user keys will be accessible to the systems that have the software installed.