Re:RIP LivingSocial: The fast rise and slow demise of a dail...
by HalfwayToDice on Sunday February 26, 2017 @05:05AM
(#13736529)
80% of total members continued to use the website after the password reset? That seems too high. Perhaps they meant 80% of active members. Unless the website had an incredibly low churn rate.
Re:RIP LivingSocial: The fast rise and slow demise of a dail...
by protocow on Sunday February 26, 2017 @09:12AM
(#13737285)
Or c-level executives will remember this tidbit before they let their security folks talk them into a password reset after a breach. You have to wonder whether a company in that situation has other options, like blocking logins from previously unseen IPs (for users who don't change passwords).
Re:RIP LivingSocial: The fast rise and slow demise of a dail...
by hackerboos on Sunday February 26, 2017 @11:27AM
(#13738002)
You think a company that was using SHA1 [0] to hash passwords was actually logging IP addresses?
[0] - https://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/why-livingsocials-5...
Re:RIP LivingSocial: The fast rise and slow demise of a dail...
by draw_down on Sunday February 26, 2017 @10:39AM
(#13737687)
Hmm, isn't that the opposite of a good example? Here's what I feel like a C-level exec would take away from that story: if you ask users to reset their password, you'll lose 20% of them.
Re:RIP LivingSocial: The fast rise and slow demise of a dail...
by swang on Sunday February 26, 2017 @04:42PM
(#13740084)
my viewpoint was once there is a breach there will be anger and maybe 20% of our customers don't come back. not resetting passwords and possibly further endangering your customer base seems like a bad idea.
but i can see someone taking your viewpoint... which is worrying.
I don't know how they came to this number, but at least it's something to point to when the c-level executives decide password security is something that they can just skip doing. Obviously part of that 20% is are just dead accounts but still, something to show next time you're in this situation.