Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by avar on Friday May 04, 2018 @05:40AM
(#16993305)
Easy, you have a framework that validates & sanitizes all your parameters, don't allow any non-declared parameter, and make something like "can_be_logged" a mandatory attribute, then only log those & audit them.
Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by tbodt on Friday May 04, 2018 @07:19PM
(#16999212)
I'd replace redacted fields with [redacted], or maybe U+2588
Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by amelius on Friday May 04, 2018 @08:39AM
(#16994066)
You prevent a lot of these problems by hashing passwords as soon as possible (i.e., on the client).
Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by amhokies on Friday May 04, 2018 @09:02AM
(#16994233)
Wouldn't that make it easier for someone that has access to hashed passwords in the case of a database leak? They would just have to submit the username and the hashed password (which they now have).
Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by etruong42 on Sunday May 06, 2018 @03:28PM
(#17007964)
You're right, but the attacker won't get the user's original password that they probably reuse elsewhere.
If it's just your authentication system hashes that are compromised, the damage can be contained.
Re:Twitter urges users to change passwords after computer 'g...
by jageen on Monday May 07, 2018 @10:08PM
(#17018283)
In this case client side will have our algorithm (i.e in JavaScript) + private key which we will use to hash the password. If this is the case I could not see any different between giving hacker password or hash-password with algorithm and key.
It turns out that this is non-trivial - when censoring how do you indicate that something was changed, while keeping the output to a minimum? blank/"null" was rejected because it would mask other problems, and "* THIS FIELD HAS BEEN REDACTED DUE TO SENSITIVE INFORMATION *" was rejected for being "too long". Currently we use "XXXXX", which has caused some intern head scratching but is otherwise fine.