this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
834 points (98.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

32495 readers
622 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Although it's true that you are increasing the attack surface when compared to locally stored OTP keys, in the context of OTPs, it doesn't matter. It still is doing it's job as the second factor of authentication. The password is something you know, and the OTP is something you have (your phone/SIM card).

I would argue it is much worse what 1Password and Bitwarden (and maybe others?) allows the users to do. Which is to have the both the password and the OTP generator inside the same vault. For all intents and purposes this becomes a single factor as both are now something you know (the password to your vault).

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That’s not quite right though, there’s the factor you know (password to your vault), and the factor you have (a copy of the encrypted vault).

Admittedly, I don’t use that feature either, but, it’s not as bad as it seems at first glance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

That’s not quite right though, there’s the factor you know (password to your vault), and the factor you have (a copy of the encrypted vault).

That would be true for offline vaults, but for services hosted on internet I don't think so. Assuming the victim does not use 2FA on their Bitwarden account, all an attacker needs is the victim's credentials (email and password). Once you present the factor you know, the vault is automatically downloaded from their services.


This is something I hadn't thought until know, but I guess password managers might(?) change the factor type from something you know (the password in your head) to something you have (the vault). At which point, if you have 2FA enabled on other services, you are authenticating with 2 things you have, the vault and your phone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assuming the victim does not use 2FA on their Bitwarden account

A pretty tall assumption given that we're already talking about someone who knows to turn on 2FA for other things. If someone knows about 2FA and password managers, they'd be insane not to have 2FA set up on the password manager itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's a fair point. I just wanted to highlight that there may be cases where a password manager isn't automatically protected by 2FA by the two factors you mentioned (The password you know and the copy of the vault) since in the case of bitwarden fulfilling one can give you the second. In order to actually achieve 2FA in this case, you would need to enable OTPs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Certainly fair.

And yeah, I personally use Bitwarden with 2FA on the Bitwarden account, but don't store any 2FA tokens in Bitwarden, handling them all separately. Don't want all the eggs in one basket.

Though given I have fingerprint access on phone and computer for bitwarden, i suppose that one basket is my finger. But if someone is taking my finger, I've got more immediate concerns than my passwords.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)