Robert Mennell

it confuses me too with how easy it seems

glad I think I helped then XD

now if you keep the encryption data seperate from the user table somewhere else too and use a completely different reference that can ALSO be stored on the user table, then your attack vector become even hard to break(especially if it's on a seperate provider)

but the base difference between the two models is that one can only compromise a single user at a time, but it's easy to figure out what user depending on attack vector, or expose multiple users and make it harder to figure out which user they are(unless you leaked that somehow too in which case it's just as bad as the first)

of course then it becomes what authenticated request did they make and how did your security implementation fail

the difference is that with the first they know they only have to compromise a single user and with the second they have to compromise a user and then check against their data.

if they get user | site | pass then it's safe to assume that they also need to get the user references to get a hint at who is where

if they get site | pass it's pretty safe to assume these are all for a single user

the difference is how the information is linked to each other

the thing becomes in both models that once that leak has happened they must now try and figure out what user they compromised. So in this aspect BOTH models are equivalent.

that will return several(if not all) rows

now realistically these will be SQL injection attacks where they malform the where clause

okay so imagine someone does actually manage to find a vulenerabilty, but it's a vulnerability related to SQL injection to allow them return only contents of a table(we're ignoring full take over here since that sounds like something you're already wary of and are planning to prevent)

happy to help learn while I acn

Think of how your system would be compromised, that should help drive your development towards a more pointed answer

ah. Either of those two models will work. The problem then becomes which is faster and more maitnainable

Depending. You need a table for reference, then after that you can move to model. So yes you should have a single table per entity(if no other entity is required but username, then yes user)

after that you'll probably want an index to keep things fast on user in the passwords table

This is more a question about proper table organization and not so much security. Really what you're asking is how you should allocate your foreign keys on your tables so that you can realistically manage a users password(s). This should be as easy as a user table with identifier(s)[email, username] | password(and however you choose to protect it) | id(your easy to use reference that never changes), and a sites table with user(the id field from the users table as a foreign key) | site | password(two way encryption based on some user secret/other logic)

@Iakano says someone with a vested interest. There are MANY reasons why you should never roll your own security scheme. There are many examples why just here on Security. The default rule of thumb is unless you're going to pour the time, resources, and external objective investigation into it, you don't actually know how secure it is. That takes money. That being said there are plenty of properly implemented MFA schemes that are secure and that if done correctly should do what you want. MFA was figured out by people long ago. There's a lot of secure ways of doing it. Use one of those.

Probably the best answer to this is "No, you should never roll your own security schemes"

@Iakano If you need to write a medium post about it then it's DEFINITELY not defined enough.

@JeremyBanks good discussion in Meta, but I feel like there is some development that can be done to keep the site safe in spite of this all.

... There's an explain xkcd?

... I just realized I'm relating to the bun picture a little to much right now chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/29728381#29728381

@RoryAlsop Same. I'm not surprised at how often people just read the opening paragraph of an answer instead of the whole thing though.

I'm surprised that Crypto Is Good question isn't more popular. You'd think with such a hot button item right now it'd be really popular.

I should have that macroed as much as I have "Security Theater" macroed.

-non time denoting greeting-

... I'm genuinely interested in the event, hence why I asked. I left to setup a VPN and suddenly it explodes. I feel a little sheepish now. Many security experts travel(audits, jobs, etc.) and information on that site has been useful before. Sure it's not strictly IS related, but it is SE related, and as a part of the larger community I feel it's relevant for us to also vet those communities as well when appropriate. Sure an ad for a travel agency would be inappropriate, but this was a Stack Ad

@RoryAlsop Oh hey your thing got six votes in the community promotion ads! Walt's that event about anyways?

I don't know the specific tools or techniques you're using. I understand the security and inner workings, and algorithms. As for specific programs... I'm not that guy.

I don't know the exact circumstances so I wouldn't be able to help(and even then I probably wouldn't be able too XD)

@Developer it might be a good idea to type @username of the person who was helping you last so they can be notified.

-non time dependent greeting here-

//furiously adds Rory to the Fiends List

@RoryAlsop you fiend you!

I'm not sure I'm following here... Amount of discounts given?

"Such and Such checked in here with Wi-Fi"

FB wifi slave accounts... Might be a lucrative marketing business too.

internet access based on email instead of key. Sounds pretty legit to me.

plus to rotate users out you just remove them from the friendslist.

On a business level it'd be awesome for guest networks. Just enter your email address to a slave account, and it's in a locked down, isolated at the hardware level network with full tracking.

Depends on the use case for me. I like it on y network at home, but would like it more if I could just limit it to a specific friends list inside of the macro fiends group(s).

Granted most home users just set an open leave and forget it network... Maybe it should be opt-out by default.

granted this one is a little harder to do

But hey the same hate happens with new features all the time until proven innocent.

yes, but in a professional setting boss keys are a thing XD