- Millions of people use password managers. They make accessing online services and bank accounts easy and simplify credit card payments.
- Many providers promise absolute security – the data is said to be so encrypted that even the providers themselves cannot access it.
- However, researchers from ETH Zurich have shown that it is possible for hackers to view and even change passwords.
You must log in or register to comment.
Use a offline password manager. Problem solved.
Solves the security issue. Destroys the accessibility part
I just sync it using my Nextcloud instance. No issues.
I use an offline password manager, and sync an encrypted database with nextcloud. It’s convenient enough, and secure enough for me. Easy to sync between my phone, desktop, and laptop. And I only need to remember two passwords, the nextcloud one, and the manager one. I don’t think you can have it more secure and convenient all the same, at least not with current tech.
Just use Syncthing with your trusted host
Bitwarden with a vaultwarden docker container on my home server. Access over a VPS.
Many will argue that they need the convenience of an online password manager not knowing that what you stated is the safest form
I pitty the fool that stores anything important on
the cloudsomebody elses computer.deleted by creator
Many providers promise absolute security
This struck me as wrong, because that would be a technically impossible and liability-inviting thing to promise.
And after checking the homepages of the 3 services they tested, yep, none of them promise “absolute security.”
i really wasnt expecting a password manager related tech fearmongering on lemmy today
With pretty much every major company being hacked at some point, credit card companies being hacked, everyone selling our details and data, doge and palantir. Feels like post it notes under the keyboard isn’t that bad of an idea.
If someone breaks into my house to read them I have big problems already.
You have no idea how many times I’ve made that exact statement.
Let’s start a club
Post its have their problems but at least they can’t be read half a globe away
Don’t store your stuff in the cloud unless you don’t mind someone else accessing it.
If you store things in the cloud that you don’t want other people to access, you better be encrypting it yourself and only opening it locally.
This has been a cardinal rule since day 1.
I don’t want people to access my files but I wouldn’t really care if they did. I don’t understand people who keep things like compromising photos of themselves online, who’s benefit is that for, and why do you need quick access to your nudies?
If it’s something that you don’t really care about others seeing, that’s a prime candidate for cloud storage and more power to you.
This topic is about password lockers. I’m pretty sure you don’t want some schlub who happens to work at Cloud Password Lockers Inc. to be able to get at your PayPal account.
Would having a synced Keepass database with a composite key protect against this?
When I made my database I created a composite key file that never goes online. I locally copy it to any device that needs to access the database. The idea was even if the password got compromised you can’t access the database without the key file
What if you have a house fire and lose all devices with the key
What if there’s a nuclear war end the house gets vaporized?
To protect against this scenario I have this small portable computer that I keep in my pocket. They’re quite popular these days.
“We want our work to help bring about change in this industry,” says Paterson. “The providers of password managers should not make false promises to their customers about security but instead communicate more clearly and precisely what security guarantees their solutions actually offer.”
Great.
Now which password vault was the most cooperative and clear in their security communication and which one wasnt?
The author said that they have given the providers time to fix the issues. Now highlight the ones that did it the best… >_>They did gove some advice. They said to go with a vendor that is transparent about problems and reveals the results of their third party security audits. I’m sure if you read between the lines it means they likely reviewed several vendors and chose to spend their time attacking ones that are opaque about their security stance and used outdated encryption or bad implementations of E2E encryption. So all three are likely suspect. Like if 1Password were developed similarly to LastPass wouldn’t they have spent time attacking it?
Edit: https://support.1password.com/security-assessments/
1Password are posting the results of their external pen testing now.
About 1password publishing their pentesting results. Why put it behind a ‘give me your email address’ wall?
That alone is enough for me to instantly disregard them as an option.
Bitwarden did so too.
But IMO your assumption is a bit of interpreting bad/malicious faith into it.
I see it more like they are the more publicly known brands/services that do this and underwent the audit.
I have read the TLDR by the authors (linked a few times in the comments) and the answer by bitwarden.
Bitwarden said the, fixed the issue, are in the progress of doing it or are accepting it as “this is intended/a trade-off”.
What is a bit sad is that they had more vulnerabilities than other vendors. But I trust them more as they are mostly OSS.
That’s why mine is a physical book.
Really depends on your threat model whether this is a good idea. If cops raiding your home is part of it, a physical book might not be your best bet.
If you’re at the point where that’s a possibility that you need to defend against then you probably already have better security than using a password manager.
That’s very true.
I use one of the password managers mentioned in the article, purely for the convenience of apps on all my devices, syncing and complex individual passwords. Should I be looking to move to self hosting something instead? Would my host (likely a synology Nas or raspberry pi) not then have the same risks?
I self host via vault warden. And I have it locked behind tailscale vpn. Aside from your server itself getting hacked, which is a risk, this is more secure than having passwords on the public internet.
I host a pi hole via diet pi already, vault warden is packaged for diet pi already, project for the weekend!
Love the raspis, just make sure the passwords are not stored on the sd card because those fail all the time hah.
Good shout! Easy to mount a folder from my Nas on it though
I believe Proton Pass does not have the design flaws shown in the article. For instance, if you lose your password, you lose your data. Your data is encrypted and decrypted on your device.
This is what all the listed password manager claim.
What was done here was tricking the client through the server to do things. So the fixes went into the client application.
Security through layers. The flaws found here are about compromised server, so hosting your own server is a good first step. Next step is making the server only accessible via your own VPN. And of course hardening the server.
I use local for important stuff (financial) and online ones for things that are not to important.
I’m slowly moving over to my own manager, I’m still struggling to get it to all work properly on all my devices though.
Everyone using online password manager services deserves everything he gets
Yes, let’s blame the victim and not the data hording mega corps that advertise their crap to collect more data, make big promises, hide the better options, and actively undermine open source in every way they can.
I’m pretty sure the average person hears “open source” and think “oh that’s insecure software made by hackers, I need to only use software from trusted sources”. Using only trusted software is still a good idea, but unfortunately the trusted sources of 2002 have betrayed us.
wahtever i use keepass
From the paper itself:
We had a video-conference and numerous email exchanges with Bitwarden. At the time of writing, they are well advanced in deploying mitigations for our attacks: BW01, BW03, BW11, BW12 were addressed, the minimum KDF iteration count for BW07 is now 5000, and their roadmap includes completely removing CBC-only encryption, enforcing per-item keys and changing the vault format for integrity. On 22.12.25 they shared with us a draft for a signed organisation membership scheme, which would resolve BW08 and BW09. At our request, to maintain anonymity, they have not yet credited us publicly for the disclosure, but plan to do so.
I didn’t look at the response to other Password managers, but the gist here is that the article is overblowing the paper by quite a bit and the majority of the “issues” discovered are either already fixed, or active design decisions.
The beauty of open source
I was also just looking for bitwarden information. Its just the best password manager and has never failed to do its job.
I dont know what they mean with less secure than promised. I didnt expect them to be perfect, and havent read that they promise no security flaws.
They advertise that passwords are only stored on the server in encrypted form, meaning they couldn’t read them even if they wanted to (or were forced to by a government agency) and you don’t have to trust them not to. This paper shows that several vulnerabilities exist in the protocol which could be exploited by malicious code running on the server (injected by hackers or a government agency), which would then allow an attacker to obtain cleartext-passwords. So you do, in fact, have to trust the servers integrity.
Thank you for taking the time to understand and comment, very valuable.
but the gist here is that the article is overblowing the paper by quite a bit and the majority of the “issues” discovered are either already fixed, or active design decisions.
“fixed”. only for new and updated passwords
Or you can change the encryption to argon2 in the settings with salted hashes.
Granted it’s probably not per item but at least something.
tl;dr:
- If the password manager server is hacked and compromised, then syncing your passwords with the compromised server will lead to compromised passwords (duh)
- None of the providers tested have (or have had in the past) compromised servers.
and an observation or two:
- Vaultwarden is free, self-hostable, and doesn’t rely on trust in a third party.
- Keepass (and its client variants, like KeepassXC which is pretty great) is even more secure because there is no server, just an encrypted file you can store anywhere.
If the password manager server is hacked and compromised, then syncing your passwords with the compromised server will lead to compromised passwords (duh)
No, not “duh”. The right way to do this is client-side encryption/decryption. The server then does not at any moment know anything about your passwords.
This is what Bitwarden claims to do, and yet we have a paper showing that with a compromised server there exists a vulnerability:
Their attacks ranged from integrity violations affecting specific, targeted user vaults to the complete compromise of all vaults within an organisation using the service. In most cases, the researchers were able to gain access to the passwords – and even make changes to them.
What they claim to do and what they do is not necessarily the same. If done properly, the server does not need to be trusted.
If the password manager server is hacked and compromised, then syncing your passwords with the compromised server will lead to compromised passwords (duh)
What do you mean “duh”? The password managers claim that the exact opposite is true.
Most service providers therefore promote their products with the promise of “zero-knowledge encryption”. This means they assure users that their stored passwords are encrypted and even the providers themselves have “zero knowledge” of them and no access to what has been stored. “The promise is that even if someone is able to access the server, this does not pose a security risk to customers because the data is encrypted and therefore unreadable. We have now shown that this is not the case”, explains Matilda Backendal.
This would be true for a properly implemented end-to-end encryption scheme.
“Properly implemented” is doing the heavy lifting in that sentence.
Four paragraphs down from your quote is this:
Their attacks ranged from integrity violations affecting specific, targeted user vaults to the complete compromise of all vaults within an organisation using the service. In most cases, the researchers were able to gain access to the passwords – and even make changes to them.
If E2EE were properly implemented, the above would be impossible.
These attacks can happen through server impersonation as well. The actual cloud servers need not be compromised, just the user’s browser has to be. This attack can then leak passwords and allow malicious parties to even gain access on the actual cloud servers apparently.
How would I know if my own server isn’t compromised? Any of the online password managers have a hell of better chance spotting intrusion than I do.
Keepass (and its client variants, like KeepassXC which is pretty great) is even more secure because there is no server, just an encrypted file you can store anywhere.
And simultaneously less secure because it’s up to you to handle keeping your vault synced between various devices and most people are significantly worse at keeping systems secure than the professionals at the password managers.
Self hosting a server of some kind or using something like Keepass on a single device (with offline backups) is the most secure option, but as usual with security doing so trades significant convenience for security. For most people who are uninterested in making sure their servers are kept up to date week to week letting professionals handle it is the better option.
I store my keypass database on several flash drives in different physical locations and update them several times per year to make sure that even if I do lose the copy I have, the versions on the flash drives, not at my physical location, are decently up to date, and so if I do lose any of the password data, it will be only for a couple of months worth if that.
If I add things that are extremely important, such as a new mortgage provider, or some sort of financial data into my keypass database, then I do an unscheduled immediate update to all of my flash drives in different physical locations to make sure that they all have that, but if it’s just a social media account, and I was to lose access to it, and not have the password for it, then… I wouldn’t be too upset about it.
In the absolute worst possible case, I stand to lose 3 months worth of data. It’s not often that I have to tweak stuff in my password manager, so that would be very few changes.
Great.
I am now your spouse and you want to give me access to the flash drive. What now?New requirement: I have several passwords I want to give you access to as well. What now?
As with everything: Your solution may work for yourself and a few others. The majority don’t want to collect 5 flash drives in different locations every 3 months to update a file (and making sure it’s the correct vault they have copied)
PThe master copy stays on my device. If I need to give somebody access to a specific password, I just give them that password locally and they put it in their password manager for that account.
Same thing occurs if they need to give me a password. They give me the password. I put it in my password manager and then I’m the one who updates the flash drives on the rotating basis like I mentioned above.
Great.
Now your data is (potentially) exactly where you are trying to keep it out of.So you made it more cumbersome to yourself by keeping your data as local as possible, yet still chosing to give up the tiny sliver of additional security for the comfort of others.
I don’t want to be annoying. But I hope you see what I am trying to convey.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see what you’re trying to convey. The people I give my passwords to also don’t use cloud password managers.
And simultaneously less secure because it’s up to you to handle keeping your vault synced between various devices and most people are significantly worse at keeping systems secure than the professionals at the password managers.
It is not less secure.
If the Bitwarden servers are compromised (either by hacking or by being forced to by the government of the country where they are hosted) then code could be run which would allow the attacker to receive your plaintext password and that is used to decrypt your data.
If a user is so horrible at syncing that they accidentally synced their database file to a public Twitter post, it is still protected by AES-256 which can’t be broken by a simple subpoena.
In either case, syncthing is pretty simple to use and is the common recommendation for the kind of small personal file sync that you need here. It also adds an additional security layer, on top of the unbreakable AES-256 encryption, to the whole setup.
Sure, but at the end of the day even if you don’t update your vaultwarden server or you rely on an insecure storage sync system like dropbox, your actual vault is encrypted with a key that only you know. Even if your server is hacked or the kdbx is leaked, your passwords are safe until someone breaks AES.
Contrast that with hosted services, who could very easily attach their own keys to your encryption key (whether now or in the future at the behest of the state) and you’d be none the wiser. E2EE doesn’t matter much when the other end is controlled by someone else.
I’m not disagreeing that most people just want something to work without thinking about, and for that reason I’m glad that services like bitwarden and lastpass and protonpass exist. My intent was not FUD, just shining a light on the fact that keeping your passwords secure does not require trusting a company.
Sure, but at the end of the day even if you don’t update your vaultwarden server or you rely on an insecure storage sync system like dropbox, your actual vault is encrypted with a key that only you know. Even if your server is hacked or the kdbx is leaked, your passwords are safe until someone breaks AES.
not really the case: https://lemmy.ml/comment/24008121
Contrast that with hosted services, who could very easily attach their own keys to your encryption key
how would official Bitwarden be able to accomplish that? apart from this vulnerability, they can’t use their servers to add their own keys.
