My work requires me to work with (what I believe to be) a very insecure website, what to do?
up vote
39
down vote
favorite
At my job, to be able to view my paychecks, vacation hours and HR data on myself I need to log into a 3rd party website.
I'm by no means a security expert or expert programmer but I could tell (simply by trying) that I could continue to try incorrect passwords without being locked out. (brute force: viable)
After logging in I was forced to select 3 pre-determined security questions in the case of a password reset (out of a total of 8!) such as my first car's licence plate (never owned a car 3/7), my spouse's 2nd name (don't have a spouse 3/6), 2nd name of my first kid (don't have kids 3/5), birthdate, name of my highschool, favorite pet, favorite film or favorite piece of music.
Most these things you can simply get from my facebook, (which, I should note, has not been updated for years!) again showing a distinct lack of understanding in basic security practices.
I also get the feeling, from looking at the site through the developer tools they use incredibly outdated software
A JavaScript implementation of the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
* Digest Algorithm, as defined in RFC 1321.
* Version 2.1 Copyright (C) Paul Johnston 1999 - 2002.
I reported this through my company but my superiors don't appear all that interested.
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself
(preferably in an anonymous fashion)
account-security websites
New contributor
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
39
down vote
favorite
At my job, to be able to view my paychecks, vacation hours and HR data on myself I need to log into a 3rd party website.
I'm by no means a security expert or expert programmer but I could tell (simply by trying) that I could continue to try incorrect passwords without being locked out. (brute force: viable)
After logging in I was forced to select 3 pre-determined security questions in the case of a password reset (out of a total of 8!) such as my first car's licence plate (never owned a car 3/7), my spouse's 2nd name (don't have a spouse 3/6), 2nd name of my first kid (don't have kids 3/5), birthdate, name of my highschool, favorite pet, favorite film or favorite piece of music.
Most these things you can simply get from my facebook, (which, I should note, has not been updated for years!) again showing a distinct lack of understanding in basic security practices.
I also get the feeling, from looking at the site through the developer tools they use incredibly outdated software
A JavaScript implementation of the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
* Digest Algorithm, as defined in RFC 1321.
* Version 2.1 Copyright (C) Paul Johnston 1999 - 2002.
I reported this through my company but my superiors don't appear all that interested.
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself
(preferably in an anonymous fashion)
account-security websites
New contributor
55
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
17
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
10
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
81
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
7
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
39
down vote
favorite
up vote
39
down vote
favorite
At my job, to be able to view my paychecks, vacation hours and HR data on myself I need to log into a 3rd party website.
I'm by no means a security expert or expert programmer but I could tell (simply by trying) that I could continue to try incorrect passwords without being locked out. (brute force: viable)
After logging in I was forced to select 3 pre-determined security questions in the case of a password reset (out of a total of 8!) such as my first car's licence plate (never owned a car 3/7), my spouse's 2nd name (don't have a spouse 3/6), 2nd name of my first kid (don't have kids 3/5), birthdate, name of my highschool, favorite pet, favorite film or favorite piece of music.
Most these things you can simply get from my facebook, (which, I should note, has not been updated for years!) again showing a distinct lack of understanding in basic security practices.
I also get the feeling, from looking at the site through the developer tools they use incredibly outdated software
A JavaScript implementation of the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
* Digest Algorithm, as defined in RFC 1321.
* Version 2.1 Copyright (C) Paul Johnston 1999 - 2002.
I reported this through my company but my superiors don't appear all that interested.
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself
(preferably in an anonymous fashion)
account-security websites
New contributor
At my job, to be able to view my paychecks, vacation hours and HR data on myself I need to log into a 3rd party website.
I'm by no means a security expert or expert programmer but I could tell (simply by trying) that I could continue to try incorrect passwords without being locked out. (brute force: viable)
After logging in I was forced to select 3 pre-determined security questions in the case of a password reset (out of a total of 8!) such as my first car's licence plate (never owned a car 3/7), my spouse's 2nd name (don't have a spouse 3/6), 2nd name of my first kid (don't have kids 3/5), birthdate, name of my highschool, favorite pet, favorite film or favorite piece of music.
Most these things you can simply get from my facebook, (which, I should note, has not been updated for years!) again showing a distinct lack of understanding in basic security practices.
I also get the feeling, from looking at the site through the developer tools they use incredibly outdated software
A JavaScript implementation of the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
* Digest Algorithm, as defined in RFC 1321.
* Version 2.1 Copyright (C) Paul Johnston 1999 - 2002.
I reported this through my company but my superiors don't appear all that interested.
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself
(preferably in an anonymous fashion)
account-security websites
account-security websites
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
schroeder♦
70.3k27152187
70.3k27152187
New contributor
asked yesterday
A. Nony-Mous
20223
20223
New contributor
New contributor
55
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
17
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
10
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
81
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
7
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
55
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
17
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
10
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
81
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
7
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
55
55
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
17
17
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
10
10
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
81
81
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
7
7
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
63
down vote
To start with the easy bit: you do not have to put real information as the answers to the questions. Random strings work best if you are really paranoid and store them in a password manager just like a password.
The rest (no brute force protection, potentially outdated software) is a shame, but there is nothing that you can do, from a security perspective. I would raise the issue with HR/Payroll and ask them to investigate. If you are in Europe, then you can also talk to your DPO to suggest that their "Data Processor" has troubling account security practices that need to be investigated.
Otherwise, this is more of an internal office politics issue.
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
To me this says you haven't investigated enough to confidently say it's insecure. You haven't shown any particular direct exploit nor really dug into their system (in a non-hacking, poking around kind of way). Your superiors may not be interested because of the lacking direct evidence of this.
As an example, my work uses a 3rd party site for scheduling vacations, I found it allows me to "recover" my password by sending my exact password back in plain-text via email, that is a direct evidence of an issue that I can report. Likewise, a site used for some IT services (SIP Trunk) had an issue where I could change the ID's in the URL and (to my surprise) view other people's account info, again, another direct line of evidence. Right now, you just have suspicions, and not obvious ones.
As an aside, all security questions for resetting passwords are insecure, as they rely on common information. As others have suggested, you can put fake answers in here (that you can still remember) or entirely randomly generated strings. You can think of the security questions as a "String" to "String" security challenge in the most generic sense.
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
i didn't downvote, butlogin system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.
– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
You really cannot, unless you witness a concrete, exploitable problem. That's what infosec companies do, they try to actively break systems (with consent of the owners). They know many procedures and techniques to systematically take such an application appart, from simple things like using HTTP instead of HTTPS, insecure usage of cookies, XSS, SQL injection, but also other stuff like IDs being obviously simply counted up (which means you can just try them out sequentially), stuff being only checked on the browser (easily forged), and so on and so forth.
They also can combine blackbox- with whitebox-approaches (i.e., just looking from the outside, like any hacker/cracker would do, or actually studying the source code, entering the servers with provided accounts, and so on).
You could do all that yourself, but as you are asking, you obviously don't really know how. But the main problem is that if you did that, without first getting consent, you'd be at least in gray territory, if not outright breaking law.
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself (preferably in an anonymous fashion)
You cannot (anonymously, at least). If there is a dedicated CISO, he would be your first line of attack; but aside from that, especially in smaller firms, there is little you can do if your management just shrugs it off.
I guess there may be specific circumstances in which some government agency might be interested - for example if your company works for the government in an area which has strict security requirements; then obviously you might try to get an anonymous message to somewhere, but why would they care about your HR information...
But in general, for arbitrary companies, the saying "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves" would apply.
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
If you are an IT professional you can read the ACM Code of Ethics, which is the most comprehensive ethics code in IT today.
Section 1.2 says:
"A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation."
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
63
down vote
To start with the easy bit: you do not have to put real information as the answers to the questions. Random strings work best if you are really paranoid and store them in a password manager just like a password.
The rest (no brute force protection, potentially outdated software) is a shame, but there is nothing that you can do, from a security perspective. I would raise the issue with HR/Payroll and ask them to investigate. If you are in Europe, then you can also talk to your DPO to suggest that their "Data Processor" has troubling account security practices that need to be investigated.
Otherwise, this is more of an internal office politics issue.
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
63
down vote
To start with the easy bit: you do not have to put real information as the answers to the questions. Random strings work best if you are really paranoid and store them in a password manager just like a password.
The rest (no brute force protection, potentially outdated software) is a shame, but there is nothing that you can do, from a security perspective. I would raise the issue with HR/Payroll and ask them to investigate. If you are in Europe, then you can also talk to your DPO to suggest that their "Data Processor" has troubling account security practices that need to be investigated.
Otherwise, this is more of an internal office politics issue.
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
63
down vote
up vote
63
down vote
To start with the easy bit: you do not have to put real information as the answers to the questions. Random strings work best if you are really paranoid and store them in a password manager just like a password.
The rest (no brute force protection, potentially outdated software) is a shame, but there is nothing that you can do, from a security perspective. I would raise the issue with HR/Payroll and ask them to investigate. If you are in Europe, then you can also talk to your DPO to suggest that their "Data Processor" has troubling account security practices that need to be investigated.
Otherwise, this is more of an internal office politics issue.
To start with the easy bit: you do not have to put real information as the answers to the questions. Random strings work best if you are really paranoid and store them in a password manager just like a password.
The rest (no brute force protection, potentially outdated software) is a shame, but there is nothing that you can do, from a security perspective. I would raise the issue with HR/Payroll and ask them to investigate. If you are in Europe, then you can also talk to your DPO to suggest that their "Data Processor" has troubling account security practices that need to be investigated.
Otherwise, this is more of an internal office politics issue.
answered yesterday
schroeder♦
70.3k27152187
70.3k27152187
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
4
4
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
There is one thing you can do about the lack of protection against brute forcing passwords: You can use a strong password.
– kasperd
yesterday
97
97
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
"you do not have to put real information" Are you trying to tell me my First Pets Name isn't LRnq98FHk63FbrdYbJHvMRRe? I miss LRnq...
– WernerCD
23 hours ago
68
68
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
Or you could actually name your pets and kids with a password manger.
– Rad80
19 hours ago
29
29
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
@Rad80 but then people would know the answer to your security questions. You should really name your pets and kids with a password manager, but put in real/normal names in the security questions.
– IronCraftMan
19 hours ago
9
9
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
The problem with this approach is of course: You will need to supply the security answers only in situations where you have lost the password itself. The only way I can imagine how you lost it is by corrupting your password manager (or by not habing access to it from far away) - in which case you won't have access to your random pet names stored in the same password manager, either.
– Hagen von Eitzen
15 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
To me this says you haven't investigated enough to confidently say it's insecure. You haven't shown any particular direct exploit nor really dug into their system (in a non-hacking, poking around kind of way). Your superiors may not be interested because of the lacking direct evidence of this.
As an example, my work uses a 3rd party site for scheduling vacations, I found it allows me to "recover" my password by sending my exact password back in plain-text via email, that is a direct evidence of an issue that I can report. Likewise, a site used for some IT services (SIP Trunk) had an issue where I could change the ID's in the URL and (to my surprise) view other people's account info, again, another direct line of evidence. Right now, you just have suspicions, and not obvious ones.
As an aside, all security questions for resetting passwords are insecure, as they rely on common information. As others have suggested, you can put fake answers in here (that you can still remember) or entirely randomly generated strings. You can think of the security questions as a "String" to "String" security challenge in the most generic sense.
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
i didn't downvote, butlogin system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.
– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
To me this says you haven't investigated enough to confidently say it's insecure. You haven't shown any particular direct exploit nor really dug into their system (in a non-hacking, poking around kind of way). Your superiors may not be interested because of the lacking direct evidence of this.
As an example, my work uses a 3rd party site for scheduling vacations, I found it allows me to "recover" my password by sending my exact password back in plain-text via email, that is a direct evidence of an issue that I can report. Likewise, a site used for some IT services (SIP Trunk) had an issue where I could change the ID's in the URL and (to my surprise) view other people's account info, again, another direct line of evidence. Right now, you just have suspicions, and not obvious ones.
As an aside, all security questions for resetting passwords are insecure, as they rely on common information. As others have suggested, you can put fake answers in here (that you can still remember) or entirely randomly generated strings. You can think of the security questions as a "String" to "String" security challenge in the most generic sense.
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
i didn't downvote, butlogin system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.
– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
To me this says you haven't investigated enough to confidently say it's insecure. You haven't shown any particular direct exploit nor really dug into their system (in a non-hacking, poking around kind of way). Your superiors may not be interested because of the lacking direct evidence of this.
As an example, my work uses a 3rd party site for scheduling vacations, I found it allows me to "recover" my password by sending my exact password back in plain-text via email, that is a direct evidence of an issue that I can report. Likewise, a site used for some IT services (SIP Trunk) had an issue where I could change the ID's in the URL and (to my surprise) view other people's account info, again, another direct line of evidence. Right now, you just have suspicions, and not obvious ones.
As an aside, all security questions for resetting passwords are insecure, as they rely on common information. As others have suggested, you can put fake answers in here (that you can still remember) or entirely randomly generated strings. You can think of the security questions as a "String" to "String" security challenge in the most generic sense.
To me this says you haven't investigated enough to confidently say it's insecure. You haven't shown any particular direct exploit nor really dug into their system (in a non-hacking, poking around kind of way). Your superiors may not be interested because of the lacking direct evidence of this.
As an example, my work uses a 3rd party site for scheduling vacations, I found it allows me to "recover" my password by sending my exact password back in plain-text via email, that is a direct evidence of an issue that I can report. Likewise, a site used for some IT services (SIP Trunk) had an issue where I could change the ID's in the URL and (to my surprise) view other people's account info, again, another direct line of evidence. Right now, you just have suspicions, and not obvious ones.
As an aside, all security questions for resetting passwords are insecure, as they rely on common information. As others have suggested, you can put fake answers in here (that you can still remember) or entirely randomly generated strings. You can think of the security questions as a "String" to "String" security challenge in the most generic sense.
edited 22 hours ago
schroeder♦
70.3k27152187
70.3k27152187
answered 23 hours ago
Jarrod Christman
37716
37716
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
i didn't downvote, butlogin system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.
– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
add a comment |
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
i didn't downvote, butlogin system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.
– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
8
8
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
By the way, any down votes are welcome, as long as an explanation is given. We're all only posting here to help, so helping the help get better at helping is helpful ;-)
– Jarrod Christman
23 hours ago
6
6
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
You are confusing hazards with exploits. The hazards are clear and understandable. Also, you have not answered the question (you reiterated the question). "How would I go about: A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?" Your answer says, "you need to find out if the site is insecure"
– schroeder♦
22 hours ago
1
1
i didn't downvote, but
login system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.– user1067003
14 hours ago
i didn't downvote, but
login system is not protected against bruteforce / dictionary attacks
is a very real direct problem. i would also check if the system is vulnerable against timing attacks (which can massively speed up a bruteforce attack), but that's just me.– user1067003
14 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
It's hard to decide which is worse: them using MD5, them rolling their own implementation of the MD5 algorithm, or them using MD5 client side. Anyone one of those is a sure sign of poor security practices.
– Conor Mancone
13 hours ago
2
2
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
Many employers will be greatly annoyed if they discover you pen-testing their systems without advance knowledge and permission, and some might even try to bust you for violating hacking laws. Of course, if you ask "Can I spend my working hours on pen-testing this system I'm not responsible for?" the answer may well be no.
– Kevin
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
You really cannot, unless you witness a concrete, exploitable problem. That's what infosec companies do, they try to actively break systems (with consent of the owners). They know many procedures and techniques to systematically take such an application appart, from simple things like using HTTP instead of HTTPS, insecure usage of cookies, XSS, SQL injection, but also other stuff like IDs being obviously simply counted up (which means you can just try them out sequentially), stuff being only checked on the browser (easily forged), and so on and so forth.
They also can combine blackbox- with whitebox-approaches (i.e., just looking from the outside, like any hacker/cracker would do, or actually studying the source code, entering the servers with provided accounts, and so on).
You could do all that yourself, but as you are asking, you obviously don't really know how. But the main problem is that if you did that, without first getting consent, you'd be at least in gray territory, if not outright breaking law.
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself (preferably in an anonymous fashion)
You cannot (anonymously, at least). If there is a dedicated CISO, he would be your first line of attack; but aside from that, especially in smaller firms, there is little you can do if your management just shrugs it off.
I guess there may be specific circumstances in which some government agency might be interested - for example if your company works for the government in an area which has strict security requirements; then obviously you might try to get an anonymous message to somewhere, but why would they care about your HR information...
But in general, for arbitrary companies, the saying "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves" would apply.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
You really cannot, unless you witness a concrete, exploitable problem. That's what infosec companies do, they try to actively break systems (with consent of the owners). They know many procedures and techniques to systematically take such an application appart, from simple things like using HTTP instead of HTTPS, insecure usage of cookies, XSS, SQL injection, but also other stuff like IDs being obviously simply counted up (which means you can just try them out sequentially), stuff being only checked on the browser (easily forged), and so on and so forth.
They also can combine blackbox- with whitebox-approaches (i.e., just looking from the outside, like any hacker/cracker would do, or actually studying the source code, entering the servers with provided accounts, and so on).
You could do all that yourself, but as you are asking, you obviously don't really know how. But the main problem is that if you did that, without first getting consent, you'd be at least in gray territory, if not outright breaking law.
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself (preferably in an anonymous fashion)
You cannot (anonymously, at least). If there is a dedicated CISO, he would be your first line of attack; but aside from that, especially in smaller firms, there is little you can do if your management just shrugs it off.
I guess there may be specific circumstances in which some government agency might be interested - for example if your company works for the government in an area which has strict security requirements; then obviously you might try to get an anonymous message to somewhere, but why would they care about your HR information...
But in general, for arbitrary companies, the saying "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves" would apply.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
You really cannot, unless you witness a concrete, exploitable problem. That's what infosec companies do, they try to actively break systems (with consent of the owners). They know many procedures and techniques to systematically take such an application appart, from simple things like using HTTP instead of HTTPS, insecure usage of cookies, XSS, SQL injection, but also other stuff like IDs being obviously simply counted up (which means you can just try them out sequentially), stuff being only checked on the browser (easily forged), and so on and so forth.
They also can combine blackbox- with whitebox-approaches (i.e., just looking from the outside, like any hacker/cracker would do, or actually studying the source code, entering the servers with provided accounts, and so on).
You could do all that yourself, but as you are asking, you obviously don't really know how. But the main problem is that if you did that, without first getting consent, you'd be at least in gray territory, if not outright breaking law.
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself (preferably in an anonymous fashion)
You cannot (anonymously, at least). If there is a dedicated CISO, he would be your first line of attack; but aside from that, especially in smaller firms, there is little you can do if your management just shrugs it off.
I guess there may be specific circumstances in which some government agency might be interested - for example if your company works for the government in an area which has strict security requirements; then obviously you might try to get an anonymous message to somewhere, but why would they care about your HR information...
But in general, for arbitrary companies, the saying "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves" would apply.
How would I go about:
A. Finding out if this site is really as insecure as I think it is?
You really cannot, unless you witness a concrete, exploitable problem. That's what infosec companies do, they try to actively break systems (with consent of the owners). They know many procedures and techniques to systematically take such an application appart, from simple things like using HTTP instead of HTTPS, insecure usage of cookies, XSS, SQL injection, but also other stuff like IDs being obviously simply counted up (which means you can just try them out sequentially), stuff being only checked on the browser (easily forged), and so on and so forth.
They also can combine blackbox- with whitebox-approaches (i.e., just looking from the outside, like any hacker/cracker would do, or actually studying the source code, entering the servers with provided accounts, and so on).
You could do all that yourself, but as you are asking, you obviously don't really know how. But the main problem is that if you did that, without first getting consent, you'd be at least in gray territory, if not outright breaking law.
B. if true: communicating this in an appropriate manner to the company itself (preferably in an anonymous fashion)
You cannot (anonymously, at least). If there is a dedicated CISO, he would be your first line of attack; but aside from that, especially in smaller firms, there is little you can do if your management just shrugs it off.
I guess there may be specific circumstances in which some government agency might be interested - for example if your company works for the government in an area which has strict security requirements; then obviously you might try to get an anonymous message to somewhere, but why would they care about your HR information...
But in general, for arbitrary companies, the saying "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves" would apply.
answered 15 hours ago
AnoE
2,0021311
2,0021311
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
If you are an IT professional you can read the ACM Code of Ethics, which is the most comprehensive ethics code in IT today.
Section 1.2 says:
"A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation."
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
If you are an IT professional you can read the ACM Code of Ethics, which is the most comprehensive ethics code in IT today.
Section 1.2 says:
"A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation."
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
If you are an IT professional you can read the ACM Code of Ethics, which is the most comprehensive ethics code in IT today.
Section 1.2 says:
"A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation."
If you are an IT professional you can read the ACM Code of Ethics, which is the most comprehensive ethics code in IT today.
Section 1.2 says:
"A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation."
answered yesterday
Peter Papadopoulos
1936
1936
add a comment |
add a comment |
A. Nony-Mous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
A. Nony-Mous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
A. Nony-Mous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
A. Nony-Mous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f197720%2fmy-work-requires-me-to-work-with-what-i-believe-to-be-a-very-insecure-website%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
55
A mitigation for security questions is to have randomly-generated passwords from a password manager as security "answers". That way, an adversary has no way to use OSINT against you. The rest of your question should be moved to workplace.stackexchange.com TBH
– SeeYouInDisneyland
yesterday
17
Your analysis may be incorrect. Doesn't hassle you after a few wrong attempts doesn't imply it's vulnerable to brute force, we have other better more user friendly ways. Captchas, rate limiting etc.
– Nathan Cooper
yesterday
10
MD5 is pretty straightforward, so it's not surprising that code built to generate an MD5 hash wouldn't have changed much since being written (and it was released in 1992). Using MD5 is potentially problematic, but it's possible to use it in safe, innocuous ways. One hopes the site's not doing password hashing client-side, for example.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
81
That's my MD5 script they're using!
– paj28
23 hours ago
7
The fact that you can keep entering passwords doesn't mean there's no brute-force protection. It is possible (and actually highly sensible!) to simply incur an ever bigger delay with every incorrect attempt. This makes a true brute force infeasible without locking somebody out who simply keeps mistyping their password.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago