T-Mobile Stores Part of Customers' Passwords In Plaintext, Says It Has 'Amazingly Good' Security (vice.com) 71
T-Mobile Austria admitted on Twitter that it stores at least part of their customer's passwords in plaintext. What this means is that "if anyone breaches T-Mobile (it's only a matter of time), they could likely guess or brute-force every user's password," reports Motherboard. "If the passwords were fully encrypted or hashed, it wouldn't be that easy. But having a portion of the credential in plaintext reduces the difficulty of decoding the hashed part and obtaining the whole password." From the report: "Based on what we know about how people choose their passwords," Per Thorsheim, the founder of the first-ever conference dedicated to passwords, told me via Twitter direct message, "knowing the first 4 characters of your password can make it DEAD EASY for an attacker to figure out the rest." T-Mobile doesn't see that as a problem because it has "amazingly good security." On Thursday, a T-Mobile Austria customer support employee made that stunning revelation in an incredibly nonchalant tweet. Twitter user Claudia Pellegrino was quick to point out that storing passwords in plaintext is wrong, but another T-Mobile customer rep didn't see it that way. "I really do not get why this is a problem. You have so many passwords for every app, for every mail-account and so on. We secure all data very carefully, so there is not a thing to fear," the rep wrote back.
Why? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably as a "hint" they can provide to the customers who call and say "Help! I don't remember my password!" However that is an extremely stupid position to take.
Also, this quote was mind-boggling:
"I really do not get why this is a problem. You have so many passwords for every app, for every mail-account and so on. We secure all data very carefully, so there is not a thing to fear"
This person responded to a question regarding a demonstrably insecure practice basically with the tautological claim "it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Already tagged this story with famouslastwords.
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely NOT a good reason to do this, but it's a possible explanation.
Some password policies have a rule that says your password can't be too similar to your last few passwords. It's easy to determine if your new password is similar to the last one, because you just entered the last one to change it. But without saving part of the plaintext there's no way to know (if a good hash algorithm is used) if the new password is similar to one used two passwords ago.
So maybe they're using to try to enforc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So save the OLD, no longer valid password for future comparison purposes.
Still a terrible idea (Oh hey, this one was 'sickofthis13', let's try 'sickofthis14') but better than keeping part of an active, valid password open for anyone to see.
Imagine if you found out that Trump's password started with 'make*****************' ... what do you think the full password is?
Re: Why? (Score:1)
So the rep can say...i see the first four letters of your password are "abcd", please confirm the rest for me so I can better assist you. ðY
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is now a prime hacker target.
Nothing like painting a target on your back (Score:2)
That's outrageous (Score:2)
T-Mo have had problems with number hijacking/SIM-re-issue, malicious porting out of numbers to other networks, and now I find that they're storing passwords partially in plain text?
What the actual F, T-Mobile?!
Re: (Score:2)
Update: T-Mobile reps are denying storing them in plain text on Twitter so this may be a miscommunication gone out of hand.
Re: That's outrageous (Score:2)
You pigeon fucker
That just doesn't have the right ring to it, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
That just doesn't have the right ring to it, I'm afraid.
hey, any cloaca will do in a pinch.
conference dedicated to passwords. (Score:2)
That's not really how passwords are cracked (Score:3, Interesting)
knowing the first 4 characters of your password can make it DEAD EASY for an attacker to figure out the rest.
Assuming the password database is leaked and someone wants to crack *just yours* I suppose they'll get it faster.
But if you used a good password it won't happen for a long time and by then hopefully you will have been alerted to the leak.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets assume your password is made up of random characters from the entire 90(ish) printable ascii characters. An 8 character password has a 1 in 10^15 chance of any guess being correct. A 4 character password is only 1 in 10^7.
Chances are that your password doesn't use the entire character set, and probably contains a word to make it more memorable. So that the remainder of your password is partially predictable from the first four characters, which is even worse.
Sure you'd probably have to hack the passw
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A small set of data in plain text just got the time needed way down if the actual used pw length is near the plain text.
Add in years of discovered word lists and that time could go down more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If passwords have been salted, every password must be attacked separately anyway.
To put this in plain english, leaking 4 characters of the password might reduce the attack from something google couldn't do, even with all of their available CPU's, to something you can easily do on a single raspberry pi. That's the difference in computational complexity we're talking about here.
Yes, obviously this requires a data leak, and breaking the "encryption" method on the stored password fragment. But that's why we h
Re: (Score:2)
and by then hopefully you will have been alerted to the leak.
Companies have been known to sit on this type of information for many months, sometimes even *years*, so I'm not sure that's something we can rely on.
Front line reps clueless (Score:2)
"AT LEAST" part... (Score:5, Funny)
Reading between the lines, it sounds like they store the entire password in plain text.
Now, it might be that the agent doesn't understand that passwords aren't normally stored in plain text. You don't "need" to store passwords in order for users to log-in with their password. But that's hard for non-technical people to understand.
They had to go out of their way if they've stored the first four characters in plain text! They'd need an additional attribute in a database table just for that, and I just can't imagine this happening without every developer within shouting distance noticing and objecting. There would have to be a very good reason, and there would have to have been a great deal of discussion and justification.
I would love to hear the "why" if this is actually the case.
You don't need the password in plain-text to deal with lost passwords. You have a protocol for the customer to prove their identity, and then you provide a way to reset the password - whether directly by the customer or manually be a customer service rep.
Please, every T-Mobile customer: please change your password RIGHT NOW to f*** + 12 random characters!
Re: (Score:1)
For certain types of authentication you do need to store plaintext passwords - the traditional two types of logins used for dialups/pppoe are PAP and CHAP. PAP allows you to have password hashes on the auth server but transmits plaintext on the wire/air. Conversely CHAP hashes on the wire/air but requires the plaintext password to be available on the auth server due to the nature of the protocol. You choose your points of vulnerability.
Re: (Score:2)
please change your password RIGHT NOW to f*** + 12 random characters!
I don't understand. "T-Mobile" are not 12 random characters.
Don't lots of sites do this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Following the rules" works for physical security, and accounting for thousand of other peoples' money, but we've had literally thousands of years to figure out what rules to follow in those cases. Following outdated rules in computer security is bad practice.
Re:bank "passwords" (Score:2)
It's not the same. And I wish they wouldn't call it a password.
Many banks offer an additional level of protection, by allowing you to add a "password" to your account that you will be required to recite when contacting them by phone or doing business in an office.
It has nothing to do with your online account password.
Obviously, in order for the teller to verify it, they have to be able to see it.
Maybe T-Mobile used the first 4 characters of your login password for this purpose. If they did, it is BIZARRE an
It's so easy to do it right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird, I mean, it's like 3 lines of C# (and probably many other languages) to convert a string to a secure Pbkdf2 hash.
Pbkdf2 is only as "secure" as the password it protects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this case Pbkdf2 would provide at least 10,000 to 50,000 times more protection than their approach for the same password.
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Not sure if you're trolling, unaware or making some sort of pedantic argument. Key stretching and adaptive hashing are considered best practice and here's a couple references to read up on including some from TFA. These solutions will partially mitigate the impact of weak passwords.
http://plaintextoffenders.com/... [plaintextoffenders.com]
https://codahale.com/how-to-sa... [codahale.com]
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c... [sophos.com]
Cant guess mine! (Score:2)
My first four letters are "pass"... And I bet you already guessed wrong what my 8-character password is! Its really "passmark", because I love benchmarking so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I might have believed you if you were an AC. But alas, you are not an AC and I can't believe you are that stupid.
What's even worse (Score:2)
Interestingly enough (Score:1)
T-Mobile doesn't see that as a problem because it has "amazingly good security."
Only a few months ago T-Mobile's websites had a major security hole allowing hackers to access all kinds of information about users:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/... [engadget.com]
But they've been hacked. A lot. (Score:1)
https://it.slashdot.org/story/18/02/23/2118227/critical-t-mobile-bug-allowed-hackers-to-hijack-users-accounts [slashdot.org]
https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/11/t-mobile-website-flaw-social-engineering-hacks/ [engadget.com]
A quick search for "T-Mobile data leak" provided numerous results to several instances. If this is their idea of "amazingly good" then yeah, I guess it is. After all "amazingly good" isn't exactly an empiric
T-Mobile security SUCKS!!! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A fix (Score:1)
Now that we know they store the first 4 characters in plaintext, we can work around this easily enough. Simply put 1234 at the start of whatever password you want to use, and you'll have the same security as you would without the idiocy or the 1234.