this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
156 points (73.9% liked)
Programming
17518 readers
456 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is debatable. Yes, there is a chance the email is being generated and sent on the fly, before the password is stored. But in situations like this there is a much larger chance it’s being stored in plain text.
They have said it is being hashed for storage: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=669268#Post669268
I can’t fault the OP though, if I received such an email I would assume it is stored in plain text and be similarly upset.
Reversible hashed password storage isn't meaningfully better than clear text.
A reversible hash provides a paper thin layer of protection against accidental disclosure. A one way hash is widely considered the bare minimum for password storage.
Anyone claiming a password has been protected, and then being able to produce the original password, is justly subject to ridicule in security communities.
The one they were sending at registration was prior to hashing. It would not be reversible afterwards.
That's technically less terrible, then.
Good for them. /s
Edited to add the /s for clarity, because the NIST recommended remediation in 2023 for emailing a password is "burn everything down and pretend the organization never existed". /s
Again, adding that /s since that's not actually what NIST says to do, and I am, at best, paraphrasing.
I wasn’t trying to claim what was happening here, simply that one (extremely) bad practice increases the chance of another.
I suppose, but OP said in the title that the passwords were being stored in plaintext, despite that not being the case.
Using "we use a reversible hash" to claim "we don't store passwords in plain text" is the "corn syrup is not sugar" of the cybersecurity world.
It's technically correct, while also a bald faced lie.
Not sure what you mean here, this is what the forum post said:
Also if they store a copy of that email they're effectively storing the password in plaintext even if they e properly made a salty hash brown for the database.
Yep. And their own email system is probably also logging it somewhere. So are various servers along the way to it's destination.
Why wouldn't it be generated and sent immediately? If someone has the inclination to do this type of thing, they probably also want to do things synchronously and immediately.
Because one egregious decision normally begets another.
Look at it this way, if you walk into a pizza joint and there are roaches wandering around on the walls, is it not more likely the food is also unsafe to eat?
Yes, this could just be one horrible decision, but this decision shows you where the mind of the developer/team was when thinking through their security.
You actually agree with me more than you disagree. If they have the mentality to send out clear text passwords, they probably don't hage the natural talent to design an asynchronous system.