top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 172 points 11 months ago (6 children)

This seems like one picked up data packet away from being a bad idea. Am I overthinking this?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This is probably fine. The connection to DDG will be over HTTPS, so a captured packet would need to be decoded first. And if someone were to manage to break the encryption, then they would also need to know what service you used the password for.

    Ultimately, it's more secure to generate locally, but it would be a huge amount of work to get anything usable out of a packet capture

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Are they sending data? I'm pretty sure this will just be generated on the client.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm no cybersecurity expert. But couldn't they just sniff your traffic to see where you (your packets) go and test the pw on each login for the last hour?

    edit: I guess they are using DuckDuckGo, which has a higher level of privacy design and limits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    This is probably ok. First of all, they're probably actually doing it in Javascript in the browser. It probably never travels over the network at all. And, if it did, with HTTPS it would be hard to intercept and decrypt except by a government or something.

    But, it still gives me the willies to generate a password on a web page. Fundamentally a web browser is still a tool for sending and receiving data over the Internet, and that's not the kind of tool I'd want to be generating something that I don't want other people to know or see.

    What happens if there's a bug? If the password is being generated in an app on my local system a badly designed app with a bug could maybe log my newly generated password in a local log file somewhere. If there's a bug in DuckDuckGo's javascript, who knows where that newly generated password might be logged?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    That's fucked up, they should not do that. Even if they do it in a way that users are actually secure (maybe generating the password in the browser, nothing serverside?), it isn't good to train people to trust a website for this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    If you're going to auto generate passwords, just use BitWarden.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 58 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The difference in complexity in setting up bitwarden and using your own self-hosted instance of bitwarden is fucking massive. For 99.9% of people rhem using bitwarden would greatly improve their password security and bitwarden has proven to be better than the competition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    FYI Vaultwarden is simpler and should be easier to self-host

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 43 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I like the little tools like this that DuckDuckGo has. A couple others:

    • "color picker"
    • "base64 encode your_text_here" (and "base64 decode encoded_string_here" as well)
    • "json formatter"
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    my favorite is "qr code" best and easiest qr code generator

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 38 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I would definitely use those passwords! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 32 points 11 months ago

    Your password manager does this too!

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    $ Openssl rand 16 | base64

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Or just use your password manager. Where you save that password.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 11 months ago

    No thank you, KeepAssXC for me!

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    That isn't great from a security perspective

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    Ok but you should use passphrases. Better to type and remember in case you need to

    There are instances where sites prevent copy-paste, or you are on another machine without your password manager available

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    If you have a password vault, use the vault first.

    For rotating PC login credentials, I use codified passphrases. They typically meet security needs, are unique and nearly unguessable because it could be ANYTHING in your office, and don't contain dictionary words. Example:

    Annual evaluations are due before summer. Be sure to mention the Grodsky project! aeadB4S.Bs2mtGp.

    Where did Julie's candy go? I ate it! She'll never know >:D

    WdJcg?I8i!Snn>:D

    Even if I had a perfectly secure connection, I'm still getting a password from a service that could be tracking me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Pass phrases for things that need to be human readable/rememberable.

    Generated strings for everything else.

    Because a pass phrase is inherently vulnerable to a dictionary attack because... it is words. You can obfuscate that but all the ways that would actually not compromise the readability are also pretty well known (whether that is "a=@" or "every 'e' is a 'b'" and so forth.

    Is a 96 character pass phrase meaningfully more vulnerable than a 16 character generated string? That gets into the realm of hypotheticals and "one day we'll have quantum computers" but you are generally looking at a situation where everything is fucked anyway or there is a very targeted attack on you... at which point "hmm. 96 characters? Must be a pass phrase". So... not the venue to discuss.

    But, at that point... if you are using a password manager/vault anyway...


    Also the reality is that anyone who has ever dealt with a bank or some other "legacy" website rapidly learns that there are max lengths for passwords because they are more afraid of allocating a few extra megabytes for the SQL database than anything else. At which point your pass phrase goes out the window and you are back to "p@$$w0rd" level bullshit (or, better yet, you have a mental model/style of password).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 11 months ago

    Or just use a locally hosted password generator for one that isn't handfed to you by a for-profit company...

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Alternatively, you can just roll your face on the keyboard and then take a screenshot of the resulting password to save it. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    $ pwgen -s -1 32

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Short password please.

    -"Penis"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    It can also generate UUIDs. Very useful.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›