cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/42164102

Researchers demo weaknesses affecting some of the most popular options Academics say they found a series of flaws affecting three popular password managers, all of which claim to protect user credentials in the event that their servers are compromised.…

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      17 hours ago

      BW06: Icon URL Item Decryption. Items can include a URL field, which is used to autofill the credentials and display an icon on the client. The client decrypts the URL and fetches the icon from the server, including in its request the domain and top-level domain of the URL. For instance, if the URL is “https://host.tld/path”, the client request includes “host.tld”. This means that the adversary can learn (part of) the con- tents of URL fields. Using Attack BW05, an adversary can place the ciphertext of sensitive item fields, such as a user- name or a password, in the encrypted URL field. After fetch- ing the item, the client will then decrypt the ciphertext, confus- ing it for a URL. If the plaintext satisfies some conditions (i.e. containing a ‘.’ and no !), it will be leaked to the adversary. A URL checksum feature was deployed in July 2024, mak- ing the clients store a hash of the URL in another encrypted item field, therefore providing a rudimentary integrity check and preventing this attack. Note that old items are never up- dated to add such a checksum: this feature only protects items created after its introduction. Furthermore, URL checksums are only checked if a per-item key is present for the item. As we will see, an adversary can prevent per-item keys from being enabled with Attack BW10.

      IMPACT. The adversary can recover selected target ciphertexts in the item, such as the username or the password.

      REQUIREMENTS. The user opens a vault containing items that do not use per-item keys (i.e., items created before July 2024, or after Attack BW10 is run). The target plaintext must satisfy some additional conditions, detailed in Appendix

      from the paper the article is discussing

      So you could potentially expose your passwords to a compromised server or some kind of MITM. If they meet the conditions for the validation check, anyway.

      • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        My comment was to answer the question of: “Why is this relevant?” (Its been asked a lot). It’s relevant because Bitwarden is claiming that they “cannot see your passwords”.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Well if they store an encrypted blob they can’t see them.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I didn’t think you were making the post to defend Bitwarden or something. I was just adding the details of one of the exploits the paper found that directly contradicted their claim.