Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

OSI bean dip posted:



Any basic understanding of prime numbers would be enough to not let you wonder about why these are the largest pairs. I am not going to explain what is wrong in this code because if you're asking this then you shouldn't dare think about writing such.

Could you maybe explain it to those of us who are interested? Or is this thread just for people who are already so smart they don't need to actually discuss anything because holy poo poo you guys are gooning it up so loving hard.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair
Right but why is 9521, 9533 the last pair in that guy's code?

(Is it something hilarious like him using a variable type that can't handle 5-digit numbers or something?)

EDIT: Or did you just mean that having the range all be so close makes it so dumb as to be entirely pointless and not worth thinking about at all.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

Main Paineframe posted:

Typically, people just didn't think about preventing it, or simply didn't bother. Preventing brute-forces requires at least a little extra effort above and beyond just implementing the authentication. It's not that there's any particular use in letting a client attempt 1,000,000 passwords, it's that it takes extra work to put something in to prevent them from doing so, and not everyone does that extra work.

It seems like when people get to brute force passwords these days it's because they were able to get the hashes via a compromised account and download the table, rather than somebody hammering a webserver or something.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair
I also only know of one "breach" that Lastpass has had, and all it did was release stuff that's already encrypted up the wazoo.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

Those are issues for people needing multi-platform solutions, I doubt that is the majority of the userbase and doesn't excuse using an insecure manager.

Isn't the entire draw of cloud-based password managers multi-platform support? I've thought about going back to just KeePass from Lastpass, but I figure if the biggest threat to my Lastpass info requires somebody have local control over my computer I'm hosed either way.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair
I feel like if you think LastPass is insecure "just throw your entire password DB into Dropbox!" isn't really much better...

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

OSI bean dip posted:

Please explain how you have come to this conclusion. You're (mostly) in control and provided that you don't set your KeePass file to some dumb password, putting it on Dropbox or some other hosting service is far better than trusting that the algorithm used on LastPass isn't being hobbled by any inadequately written software. Hell, you can combine it with a keyfile if you're even less trusting of this method.

You can at least inspect how KeePass is treating your passwords whereas you're trusting a blackbox with LastPass that has had a number of problems in the past five years.

Last time there was a discussion about this the overwhelming opinion from goons was that Dropbox was a security joke and your data might as well just be publically accessible.

Then again that conversation was just as dripping with toxic condescension as this thread has been so maybe I missed something.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

He's gonna social engineer the password out of a dead guy? poo poo, McAfee is running his own little Fringe division now, isn't he.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

You fuckin' know it.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

CLAM DOWN posted:

Ahahaha what the gently caress is this world we live in

When I first saw this, the article I found had waaay more amazing tweets, but I forget where it was from.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

keseph posted:

You're an ISP and have successfully identified a customer participating in a botnet. You know they have an infected machine on their network, no expertise to fix it, and even if you do send a tech who knows the specific device that's the problem, what're they going to do with it when the device is unpatchable? Now consider the cost born by the ISP in this process and multiply by 500 million clueless subscribers.

I was going to say it seems like the solution is mostly just "User education and not being idiots" so pretty much it's unsolvable.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

Doug posted:

Totally! If we can just teach users how to change the telnet password on an interface they don't know exists without common tools like passwd, then we can totally solve this! This is not a user education issue. This is absolutely a device manufacturer issue. We need some kind of 'connected things' alliance to create some standards around this poo poo, create some kind of quality seal and teach users to buy those things.

Yeah I wrote that still in the "Download some sweet tunage off of Kazaa and join a botnet!" headspace. :downs:

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair
Doesn't PoisonTap exploit poor HTTP(S) implementation more than anything else? Or is the main concern here that you have hashes you can work against on your own time.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

OSI bean dip posted:

I rail against anti-virus and disk encryption for the primary reason of that I know the risks of using them and have no problem pointing out their flaws.

...

Hell, a good example of where operational security and physical security meet was when Ross Ulbricht got arrested after being found to be running Silk Road, the FBI kept his machine from locking by sticking a Mouse Jiggler into one of his laptop's USB ports, thus defeating the full disk encryption.

Wait do you mean disk encryption is fundamentally hosed or (I'm assuming it's this from your example) that people treat it as way better/unbreakable than it is?

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

OSI bean dip posted:

What is FDE going to do for you once you're in handcuffs and someone has access to your unlocked computer? Even if you epoxyed the USB ports, whoever has your machine has at least the option to keep smashing keys on the keyboard until they get what they need.


OK cool, just wanted to be sure I got you.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

Subjunctive posted:

scott/tiger

cisco/cisco

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair

Trabisnikof posted:

Sure your 3D scans of your butt might seem safe now, until you buy a tesla with rear end ID and forget you have those scans sitting in a folder on drop-box, until your tesla gets stolen by a 3D printed fake butt.

This is the world I want to live in.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply