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!


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?



Latest posts:

Test your technical and mental limits in the VB2017 foosball tournament

As has become tradition, VB2017 will once again see a security industry table football tournament. Register your team now for some great fun and adrenaline-filled matches in between sessions in Madrid!

The case against running Windows XP is more subtle than we think it is

Greater Manchester Police is one of many organizations still running Windows XP on some of its systems. This is bad practice, but the case against running XP is far more subtle than we often pretend it is.

Hot FinSpy research completes VB2017 programme

Researchers from ESET have found a new way in which the FinSpy/FinFisher 'government spyware' can infect users, details of which they will present at VB2017 in Madrid.

Transparency is essential when monitoring your users' activities

Activity monitoring by security products in general, and HTTPS traffic inspection in particular, are sensitive issues in the security community. There is a time and a place for them, VB's Martijn Grooten argues, but only when they are done right.

VB2017 preview: Android reverse engineering tools: not the usual suspects

We preview the VB2017 paper by Fortinet researcher Axelle Apvrille, in which she looks at some less obvious tools for reverse engineering Android malware.