Password security is 1% choosing a half-decent password, 99% not using it anywhere else

Posted by   Martijn Grooten on   Jul 18, 2017

It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is no such thing as absolute security. Security is always a compromise with usability, and good security is about finding the right kind of compromise for the particular threat model you're defending against.

Password security is a good example. Ideally, one should use a very strong unique password for every account and then make sure one remembers them all. In practice, this would require superhuman capabilities.


To compromise on these unworkable requirements, many people drop the uniqueness element and use the same, very strong password for all their online accounts and then make sure they memorise it. To security experts the dangers of this are obvious, and an article in the Sunday Telegraph showed how costly this can be, but is our advice helping users?

There are many websites and blog posts that explain how to choose a secure password, and while they tend to give sensible advice they often miss the most important point: barring obvious choices such as '123456' or 'password', the strength of a password plays a role in only a very limited number of attacks. Rather, password reuse or (and often combined with) phishing attacks play a much bigger role. The strength of John Podesta's password stopped mattering the moment he entered it into Fancy Bear's phishing page.

Although two-factor authentication (2FA) is again no silver bullet, and may not have deterred attackers of Fancy Bear's capabilities, it raises the bar for attackers significantly. For this reason, it should be used on accounts that matter, even if the only 2FA option uses SMS, which we know has been broken, it's still much better than using only a password.

Next to using 2FA wherever possible, a password manager can help you manage strong and unique passwords for all your accounts: putting all but the most important passwords in such a tool can take away most of the pain of managing passwords.

Password managers do come with an important weakness though: a single point of failure through which an adversary can access all your passwords if they manage to obtain your master passwords. For most accounts that is an acceptable risk, but if you think it isn't, maybe you are able to memorise a few dozen half-decent passwords. If it would help you, writing them down in a notebook isn't as bad an idea as it is purported to be against most (but not all!) adversaries. Just don't ever reuse them!

 howsecureismypassword.png

There are plenty of sites where you can check the strength of your password. But shouldn't these have a tickbox where you need to state you're not using the password anywhere else?

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
hackernews.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2018 paper: The modality of mortality in domain names

Domains play a crucial role in most cyber attacks, from the very advanced to the very mundane. Today, we publish a VB2018 paper by Paul Vixie (Farsight Security) who undertook the first systematic study into the lifetimes of newly registered domains.…

VB2018 paper: Analysing compiled binaries using logic

Constraint programming is a lesser-known technique that is becoming increasingly popular among malware analysts. In a paper presented at VB2018 Thaís Moreira Hamasaki presented an overview of the technique and explained how it can be applied to the…

Virus Bulletin encourages experienced speakers and newcomers alike to submit proposals for VB2019

With a little less than a month before the deadline of the call for papers for VB2019, Virus Bulletin encourages submissions from experienced speakers and newcomers alike.

VB2018 paper: Internet balkanization: why are we raising borders online?

At VB2018 in Montreal, Ixia researcher Stefan Tanase presented a thought-provoking paper on the current state of the Internet and the worrying tendency towards raising borders and restricting the flow of information. Today we publish both his paper…

The malspam security products miss: banking and email phishing, Emotet and Bushaloader

The set-up of the VBSpam test lab gives us a unique insight into the kinds of emails that are more likely to bypass email filters. This week we look at the malspam that was missed: banking and email phishing, Emotet and Bushaloader.

We have placed cookies on your device in order to improve the functionality of this site, as outlined in our cookies policy. However, you may delete and block all cookies from this site and your use of the site will be unaffected. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to Virus Bulletin's use of data as outlined in our privacy policy.