News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Master password in Firefox or Thunderbird? Do not bother by kerkeslager on Saturday March 10, 2018 @10:12PM (#16561522)
At least Firefox is open source and probably doesn't broadcast your passwords back to the server.

1Password is closed source and stores your passwords on a server which, should it ever be hacked, could easily cause all sorts of issues. If they received a secret order to compromise your accounts Lavabit-style, they wouldn't even have to be hacked--they might willingly backdoor their own product.

I use KeePass or KeePassX (depending on platform) which never require me to store my password database on someone else's computer.

Re:Master password in Firefox or Thunderbird? Do not bother by bradknowles on Saturday March 10, 2018 @11:21PM (#16561678)
Sorry, you’ve got some things wrong about 1Password.

Yes, they provide a cloud option where you can store your passwords on their server for synchronization purposes. But you don’t have to use it. You could just not use synchronization at all, or use a file stored on Dropbox, or iCloud, or other cloud provider of your choice. And if you use only a local file, you can still choose to sync that over the local network with approved clients of your choice with their built in network sync server.

The 1Password authors have been pretty open about how distributed their team is, and how no one single government would be able to convince them to do those kinds of things — the other developers would find out and then the game would be over.

They are also open about the crypto algorithms they use.

As for KeePass or KeePassX, which version do you use? Which of the dozens and dozens of different implementations do you use? Which database format do they support? Do you build the binaries yourself with trusted compilers? Where do you get those trusted compilers and how can you be sure that they haven’t been compromised?

Re:Master password in Firefox or Thunderbird? Do not bother by kerkeslager on Sunday March 11, 2018 @11:33AM (#16563331)
> The 1Password authors have been pretty open about how distributed their team is, and how no one single government would be able to convince them to do those kinds of things — the other developers would find out and then the game would be over.

Your options are:

A. Go to jail for contempt of court, which is a crime for which you receive no due process or appeals.

B. Give the control over to the government. Yes, your coworkers will find out about it, but you can always get another job.

Are you actually confident that all of the 1Password devs would choose A? Only one of them has to choose B.

I admire Ladar Levison for shutting down Lavabit rather than running a compromised business, because his bravery is the exception, not the rule. There are far more companies out there who have simply handed over the keys to the government when placed under minor duress, and I'm not sure on what basis you're assuming 1Password is going to be one of the exceptions.

> They are also open about the crypto algorithms they use.

Look, I'm sure the 1Password guys are nice, upstanding people, but implementing crypto correctly is hard, really hard. Sure, they are probably telling the truth about what algorithms they use. But did they implement them correctly? Would they tell you if they hadn't, given it would hurt their business?

> As for KeePass or KeePassX, which version do you use? Which of the dozens and dozens of different implementations do you use? Which database format do they support? Do you build the binaries yourself with trusted compilers? Where do you get those trusted compilers and how can you be sure that they haven’t been compromised?

Obviously security is relative, and you can point out ways in which my process is insecure. Indeed, you missed some (my computer could have a virus that keylogs my passwords--my password DB is on two drives which I connect via USB). But literally all of these apply to 1Password as well, so I don't think any of this proves that KeePass is just as insecure as 1Password.

And very notably, these are all security tradeoffs. I get something for every decrease in security I've accepted. The only thing you get for storing your passwords on someone else's computer is that they store them for you and let you access them from multiple devices, which is not something I want or need. I'm not sure you get anything at all in exchange for your password manager being closed-source--that's entirely for 1Password's benefit, not yours.

Re:Master password in Firefox or Thunderbird? Do not bother by palant on Sunday March 11, 2018 @02:46PM (#16564212)
> Look, I'm sure the 1Password guys are nice, upstanding people, but implementing crypto correctly is hard, really hard. Sure, they are probably telling the truth about what algorithms they use. But did they implement them correctly? Would they tell you if they hadn't, given it would hurt their business?

I looked into a number of password managers already. So far, 1Password is the only one where I can believe that they got the crypto right (other than my own, obviously). But I'll certainly try to find flaws in their implementation. There is a nice bug bounty on those.

Re:Master password in Firefox or Thunderbird? Do not bother by palant on Sunday March 11, 2018 @02:42PM (#16564196)
Yes, 1Password is closed source. But as far as their security design goes, they are as open as possible. In fact, I recently started looking into https://1password.com/files/1Password%20for%20Teams%20White%... to understand what choices they've made. While I don't have an overview yet, one thing for sure: their key derivation algorithm isn't built for hardware from the past century.

Storing your password database on someone else's computer might not be a bad thing if it is securely encrypted. In the end, most people have more than one device these days. If your solution is doing manual "synchronization" then the result will often turn out less secure.