PaulDotCom mailing list archives

Re: account enumeration


From: Hans Kokx <skipmeister123 () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:09:04 -0500

I wouldn't mind seeing it in PHP or Javascript or something. Anything I'd be able to drop into my DIY projects.

-- 
Hans Kokx


On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Robin Wood wrote:

On 21 December 2012 16:03, Sandro Gauci <sandro () enablesecurity com (mailto:sandro () enablesecurity com)> wrote:
I like the idea described (using email, OTP etc) but sometimes (or
quite often in my case) the clients wouldn't want to change their
login system to use anything other than what they're currently using
(i.e. username and password).

In that case, I think detection and slowing down of bruteforce attack
may be of some value. Most users will try a couple of usernames until
they hit one that is not used and then settle down with that username.
Bruteforce attacks, on the other hand, will usually keep trying even
after finding a username that is not used. Therefore the behavior is
clearly different. There's also frequency (i.e. how fast each username
is tested). I think all these factors can be used to make bruteforce
attacks less feasible by temporarily blocking registration for the
attacker. Of course, if you're blocking IP addresses, you might get
distributed attacks from proxies which may be detectable but hard to
block completely.

This sort of thing would still leak information but hopefully mitigate
the attack by making it slow enough to send the attacker elsewhere.



I always recommend some kind of lockout policy, either complete
lockout based on IP or implementation of an incremental delay which
won't really affect normal users but will make automation a pain.

I'm debating building this into a framework, anyone out there be
interested in it if I did?

Robin

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Zate <zate75 () gmail com (mailto:zate75 () gmail com)> wrote:

If you dropped the random four digits would you get problems with
impersonation where one Bugsbunny could pretend to be another once in
the system?




Yeah you need the 4 digits to maintain uniqueness of the persona. You could
represent them without it on the UI such as "Welcome back Bugsbunny" instead
of "Welcome back Bugsbunny.7854" but you need to maintain uniqueness for the
item you are using for Auth and I'd prefer in my system to use persona
rather than email address. Never have to change persona, but you might need
to change email address.



Someone on Twitter pointed out that maybe the user names should not be
private and I've been thinking about that. If you have good
protections in place to prevent things like password brute force what
is the issue with attackers finding the names of system users. If the
system is implemented like you suggest and personas are used rather
than email addresses then if someone wants to stay anonymous they just
avoid re-use of a persona across multiple systems. I have a feeling
that this is wrong but can't put my finger on why.



Persona/username wouldn't be private. if it was a forum, it's be right
beside the post you made etc. The other bonus to using 4 digits is
uniqueness per ecosystem. If Game/App A where I am SnowWhite gets popped,
we often see the bad guys try Game/App B with SnowWhite and the same
password. If i am SnowWhite.2190 on game A and SnowWhite.2345 on B, the bad
guys have no real way to know that from the dump they got from Game A's
poorly secured forums. Yeah I need to remember my username on 2 systems but
I can always recover if need be.

And yes, you can use diff personas across duff systems entirely, allowing
you to be anonymous on the new system even while keeping the same email
address.

I've seen instances where Place X gets compromised, and immediately 24 hours
later our brute force alarms would go off as the email/pass list from Place
X was ran over our system. We had a lot of other systems in place (such as
some amazing in app logging, machine/browser finger printing and Splunk,
wonderful awesome never leave home without it Splunk) and we were able to
find compromised accounts in minutes and reset the password almost on an
automated basis. Had to piss off some of the bad guys for sure.




That sounds like a good idea. Assume they attempt to log in and after
successful authentication they are securely sent a OTP which then lets
them finish authentication. If the OTP is used before successful
authentication then an attacker could flood a valid user with OTPs.




Correct. The OTP was used after a successful auth from a system not in the
whitelist. Lots of sites do it today, Steam is a good example. Code gets
sent to your email address (and as such you are trusting the user owns their
email account, if they dont, well they probably have a host of other
problems) and then you enter it.

_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com (mailto:Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com)
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com


_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com (mailto:Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com)
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com


_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com (mailto:Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com)
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com




_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com

Current thread: