Equifax hacked

Equifax says that personal details it held for 143 million U.S. consumers have been stolen by hackers.

We are obviously going to see more of that in near future. Large personal data aggregators, like Equifax, Experian, global banks and large healthcare service providers are among the most attractive targets for data thieves. Unlike social media services like Facebook, which typically use complicated and highly distributed systems to store and access user accounts data, smaller aggregators like credit agencies or banks use far less sophisticated databases, making them much easier to steal.

But what is more important, the theft implies a worrying conclusion – any personal data that played a role of a virtual ‘fingerprint’ by being strongly and privately bound to a particular person, stops being so. Our social security numbers, mobile service providers and monthly spendings cannot be relied upon any more – at least to the extent they used to in the past. This hack is a precursor of a forthcoming fundamental change in the whole ecosystem of authentication and identification of citizens basing on their personal data.

Writing passwords down without writing them down

Whether it is acceptable or not to write your passwords down has been a debatable question for ages. Just like any other eternal question, it doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer, with many factors affecting the final decision for every particular password. What we should admit though is that there are situations where writing a password down is hard to avoid, if possible at all. This is partially caused by the myriads of passwords we need to use to access different services, and the increased requirements for their length and complexity. In most scenarios, the two most important rules of thumb are that

using a complex password and writing it down is safer than using a simple one and not,

and

using different passwords and writing them down is safer than remembering a single, however complex, password and using it throughout.

And as long as we have to write our passwords down, it is quite important to do that right. This is because the passwords you write down are subject to a totally different scope of threats, comparing to the passwords you remember. While the passwords you keep in your memory are normally cracked with high-speed automated tools which use dictionaries to work out millions of passwords per second, the passwords you write down are likely to be found, stolen and used by humans. This, on the one hand, makes them somewhat easier to protect (‘we are all humans’, in the end), and on the other hand, the protection needs to be really smart (‘the computer is incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid. Man is unbelievably slow, inaccurate, and brilliant’).

Largely, there are three general rules you need to follow when writing down your passwords. Neither of those is a must, and some may appear too complicated, yet the more of them you will manage to follow, the safer your passwords will be.

The applicability of these rules is not limited with passwords – writing down your card details or any other sensitive information is subject to the same threats, and as such the same rules can be used to protect them.

The first and foremost rule,

Aim to only write passwords down where absolutely necessary.

There are plenty of ways to keep passwords secure without writing them down in plain. Use password managers or built-in browser facilities to remember the passwords for you, and protect them with sound master password. If unsure, back up the master password on a piece of paper using the rules given below. Generally, if there is a choice between writing your password down in plain in an electronic document on your computer or smartphone or on a piece of paper, choose the paper.

Hide as many facts as you can.

Don’t indicate it’s a password anywhere around it. This applies both to passwords written on the paper and those saved in your computer or smartphone as a note or file. Don’t name it ‘My Passwords.doc’, don’t place it in ‘Important Stuff’ folder, and so on. Keep it alongside your normal work documents/in a similarly looking folder on a shelf. If you need to keep your passwords in the Cloud, mix it up with some unrelated stuff. A friend of mine writes her passwords on an old newspaper, takes a picture of her cat playing with it, and saves the picture together with the rest of her photos – making it look like an innocent ‘yet another’ picture of her pet rather than an important password document.

Don’t write usernames. Normally you would only use few usernames across different online resources, the majority of which would be your e-mail address. Try remembering them instead of writing them down. By omitting the usernames, you make it harder for the villain to get use of the password.

Don’t mention the service to which the password belongs. If you follow the first rule, you will only have few passwords written down. Invent a system of indicating which password belongs to which resource, such as by using multi-colour sheets or sorting the passwords alphabetically. If absolutely necessary, use hints and associations instead of resource names.

Use multiple dimensions. Mix real and fake passwords. Write passwords on different media, use different pieces of multi-dimensional information to put the password together. Another friend of mine writes down his passwords on old business cards, and secretly uses letters and digits from names and telephone numbers printed on the cards as part of the passwords.

Finally,

Become a cryptography enthusiast – encipher your password!

When it comes to amateur kind of encryption, most of us would probably recall the technique that was used by American mafia in the Dancing Men story of the Sherlock Holmes series. The reality is that the cipher used by the mafia was not so good, as it was a basic one round substitution cipher with a constant key too easy to break, and, what is more important, it was a nightmare to use (go and try to remember an alphabet of 26 similarly looking shapes!) No wonder Sherlock managed to crack it right away.

Our goal here is to invent something more sophisticated yet easier to use for your passwords – and it’s not as difficult as you might think. Still, it is an important step, and contributing some quality brainwork will help make sure your passwords are safe. What you need to do here is invent a two-way transformation that would allow you to alter your passwords before writing them down, and reconstruct them back when you need to use them.

You can use the following techniques, combine them, or invent your own:

Change occasional letters. Avoid well-known schemes, such as replacing l with 1, E with 3, or B with 8. Everyone knows them. Invent your own scheme. One of the options is to take a random word in which no letter appears more than once, and use that word as a transformation mechanism. For example, a word ALMOST would instruct us to replace all A’s with L, all L’s with M, all M’s with O, all O’s with S, all S’s with T, and all T’s with A. To get the password back, you follow the reverse procedure, by replacing all A’s with T, all T’s with S, and so on.

Change the order of letters – e.g., by swapping letters on odd places with those on even places, or reverting the word as a whole.

Add random prefix, postfix and suffix – but make sure you remember how many characters and in what places you have added.

Sometimes it helps to write down a hint to remind you of the kind of changes that have been applied to the password, as long as the hint doesn’t disclose them right away.

All in all, the exact technique to use would depend on the criticality of the password that you need to hide. If you are only hiding your TV PIN from your kids, using a simple letter substitution would probably work just fine (though I personally would never underestimate the intelligence of kids!) If it’s your Paypal password that you keep in your wallet, you obviously need to apply a more sophisticated technique.

Now you know enough to start writing your passwords down securely. Please keep in mind, however, that the less information you give away, in any form, the safer you are, and only use the techniques described above where you have no other choice but to do it.

Now official: SMS is not a viable second authentication factor

A lot has been said on this topic, but now it’s official: SMS is not a viable second authentication factor in 2FA.

However, as I wrote earlier, it’s not specifically the text messages that are the primary source of troubles for phone-based authentication, but rather the whole authentication model relying solely on the mobile phone activities. Still, it’s great that NIST is aware of the problem and is making steps towards improving the security of 2FA.

Why your mobile phone is NOT a second authentication factor

Mobile phones are often employed as the second factor in various two-factor authentication schemes. A widely used authentication scenario involves a text, call or other kind of notification sent to your mobile phone by the service you are accessing, and authenticating you by your ability to confirm its contents. The problem here is that despite claiming their support for two-factor authentication, a lot of Internet services actually design or set it up improperly, ending up with providing not the security, but a false sense of it.

Let’s recall what two-factor authentication (2FA) is. In contrast to traditional single-secret authentication schemes, such as password-based, with 2FA you combine two different pieces of evidence to prove your identity, so that an attacker gaining access to one of the evidences couldn’t take your identity over without having access to the other. This is supposed to significantly reduce the risk of your account being hacked, as the attacker now needs two different pieces of evidence (such as your password and your fingerprint) to gain access to your account.

A lot of people are confused by the terminology 2FA evangelists use to explain the nature of the scheme. They often classify the authentication compounds into something you have, something you know and something you are, and demand that the two pieces of evidence you present to authenticate yourself must fall into two different categories. This classification is not entirely correct and slightly mixes the things up. Strictly speaking, under certain conditions you can successfully use two something you know‘s as two authentication factors; conversely, simply the presence of something you have and something you know together doesn’t guarantee the security of the overall scheme.

A much more important (and correct) requirement for choosing the two authentication factors is their independence of each other. Neither of the factors, when cracked by the attacker, should give her a tiny bit of information about the second factor. If a 2FA scheme manages to satisfy this condition, it can be good (subject to the implementation details and exact authentication methods used), but if it doesn’t – it’s definitely not.

A very common problem with using 2FA on a mobile phone (in-app or in-browser) is that the two factors chosen by the services are not entirely independent from each other. A typical phone usage scenario involves an e-mail app which is always open and authenticated; a number of social network apps with the user signed in; an Internet browser with a bunch of opened sessions. In most cases, access to the e-mail app alone will be enough to gain access to any services you use that are bound to your e-mail address. If your phone gets stolen, the services which are set up to use your mobile phone number as a second authentication factor, as well as a ‘recovery’ password reset point, when requested, will text their one-time access codes… correct, straight into the hands of the thief.

This way, typical something you have and something you know factors, when used exclusively on one device, blur into one big something you have. Any ‘second’ factor employed by a mobile app or service, unless it works via a communication channel totally external to your mobile phone, just extends the first factor and doesn’t add up to the overall account security.

Notwithstanding the above, your phone still can be used as a proper 2FA factor. The main idea here is that you should not be able to authenticate yourself solely with your phone, whatever services and their combinations your phone offers you would use. There must be some other, external and independent factor involved. A variety of options are available here, from using your desktop computer or a different mobile phone for providing the second factor, up to sending in your fingerprints or retina sample. If the authentication can be performed with the sole use of your phone, it is never a 2FA.