Reputation
Next tag badge:
593/400 score
74/80 answers
Badges
17 146 240
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~2.3m people reached

Jun
10
comment Is it secure not to have csrf protection in login forms?
@Aatif It's also a form of session donation. The terminology is largely moot anyway - the point is the actual attack and its impact.
Jun
10
awarded  Enlightened
Jun
10
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
10
comment Is it secure not to have csrf protection in login forms?
@AviD Session fixation issues can be exploited to produce a session donation in some cases, but usually they're separate. You're correct about forcing them to log in with your creds though.
Jun
10
comment Is it secure not to have csrf protection in login forms?
@AviD Not quite the same. Session fixation is where you set a session cookie in their browser before they log, but the application doesn't change the session ID on login, so you then know the session ID and can hijack their session. This gives you full access to their account. Session donation attacks involve using CSRF to log them into your account, not theirs, without them realising.
Jun
10
answered What is the difference between claims and capabilities in access control?
Jun
10
answered How do backdoors work?
Jun
10
answered Is it secure not to have csrf protection in login forms?
Jun
9
comment Potential collision with hash password
@Kruncho I'm not sure what you're asking there. If you're referring to why they're used in Linux or Windows by default, I don't know the answer. It's probably something to do with a lack of NIST approval, or just that it's always been done in a particular way. Microsoft provides PBKDF2 in the .NET Framework though (via the Rfc2898DeriveBytes class) and bcrypt is available as a command-line tool on Linux. I'm also pretty sure that some Linuxes do support bcrypt hashes for logon (in /etc/shadow), either natively or with additional PAM modules.
Jun
9
answered DRM Video encryption
Jun
9
answered Potential collision with hash password
Jun
5
comment Can DUKPT BDK be 192 bits?
Keep in mind that 3DES is vulnerable to a meet-in-the-middle attack, which reduces the time complexity of 112-bit 3DES-EDE key option 2 to 2^57 operations with a storage requirement of 2^56 64-bit blocks (512 petabytes). This is considered feasible, since a large number of organisations have SANs and other storage clusters of or exceeding this size. The same attack also applies to 3DES-EDE with a 168-bit key (i.e. three independent 56-bit keys) with a time complexity of 2^112 and the same 512PB storage cost.
Jun
3
awarded  Enlightened
Jun
3
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
1
awarded  Guru
May
31
awarded  Nice Answer
May
28
comment What is the “Moose” worm and how can I protect myself from it?
Keep in mind that the "ShieldsUP service from GRC.com" is a product created by Steve Gibson, who has demonstrated a fantastic lack of understanding of network technologies. He's a salesman and pundit, not a security expert. There are numerous reports that ShieldsUP doesn't actually properly scan ports, and may return both false positives and false negatives.
May
28
awarded  Enlightened
May
28
awarded  Nice Answer
May
27
awarded  Nice Answer