On 29.08.2014 20:50, DARKGuy . wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry, I was not subscribed before I sent this message, I'm more used
> to forums and other kind of software than mailing lists, so excuse my
> lack of netiquette in this aspect. I put the same email subject and
> history in here hoping the mailing list software will catch up with
> it.
>
> About the project I wanted to announce here, I don't know what kind of
> discussion is Branko talking about, but anything else is better than
> plaintext passwords, even if it's a simple base64 cipher (which in my
> case is Rijndael).
>
> It's curious how someone invests time in making something useful for
> the community gets such a bad reception, nice way to welcome someone,
> heh.
You can begin here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
The bottom line is that your proposal does exactly nothing to secure the
passwords, all it does is give naïve admins a false /sense/ of security.
This is known to be worse than the cure.
For example, an admin who knows that she has plaintext passwords on disk
will (hopefully) take measures to protect them, by protecting access to
the machine itself, by carefully controlling access rights to the
password file, etc. ... or by using SASL. An admin who thinks her
passwords are encrypted may not take such precautions.
In the case of your proposed solution, anyone who has access to the
server can eventually read the plaintext password file, without even
having to take the trouble of trying to decrypt it.
> Anyways, I hope it ends up being useful for someone who doesn't mind
> having a little bit of security, even if it's through "obscurity" or
> whatever you're talking about...
"A little bit of security," as you put it ... is no security at all, as
I explained above. That the default password file for CRAM-MD5
authentication in svnserve is in the clear is no accident: it is the
result of a conscious decision to not try to invent custom security
protocols, because the results are invariably disastrous. That is why we
support SASL instead, which has been reviewed and verified any number of
times. It may be a hassle to set up on Windows, but there are no simple
point-and-click solutions to securing a server.
-- Brane
> ---
> From: Branko ÄŒibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:31:18 +0200
>
> On 29.08.2014 15:04, DARKGuy . wrote:
>> Hey all :)
>>
>> I'm really proud to announce a small app I wrote located here ->
>> https://github.com/darkguy2008/SVNEncryptedAuth <- that will hook into
>> the svnserve.exe process and encrypt the passwords located in the
>> "passwd" file, while making it use a temporary file with the plaintext
>> passwords on access (deleted almost immediately for security).
>>
>> This is made so the passwords don't get stored in plaintext but with
>> some sort of encryption. I don't know why this wasn't planned in the
>> release of that app, since we all know plaintext passwords are BAD and
>> SASL is a pain to set up under Windows (also, not portable since it
>> requires registry keys) and since I don't want to go with the hassle
>> of downloading the source code and compiling the whole thing,
>> developing an IAT hook patch was easier to do.
>>
>> I hope you guys like the project and becomes useful for anyone here.
>>
>> Comments & suggestions welcome, thanks!
>> - DARKGuy
> Do we really have to go through the whole "security through obscurity"
> discussion again?
>
> -- Brane
>
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
e. br...@wandisco.com
