- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:08:46 -0400
- To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>, ext David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, www-tag@w3.org
It's probably time to wrap this up, since in some ways we're agreeing on the pros and cons, and just not landing in the same place on whether the circumstance justifies a MUST or a SHOULD. That said, I've had a number of cases where I've happily used weak passwords, not necessarily for pictures of my kids, but for access to experimental Web sites or other things of transient value where it would be a nuissance but not a disaster if casual visitors showed up. Yes, in some cases the same sites have also been blocked by robots.txt, etc., all examples of casual defenses that don't hold up well in the long run. The fact is that in each case, I think I've been pretty well aware of the risks (or at least nothing in this discussion has suprprised me), and I've been comfortable using the passwords in the clear. As another real world example, I just received a survey from a large hotel chain asking me to comment on my recent stay. Sure enough, the link to the survey page was long the lines of: http://bighotelsrus.com/survey?userid=noahsuserid&password=xxxxxxx which is about as in the clear as you can get. Now it's possible that the people putting out this survey are so dumb that they have no clue about the security risks. More likely, they just aren't that concerned about people trying to make a business out of rummaging through my email, finding the survey link, and answering the survey for me. Now, why they bother with a password at all isn't totally clear to me, but I presume the userid shows up in parts of their system where the password doesn't. Anyway, I don't see any reason they shouldn't do this sort of thing if it meets their needs. (Amusingly, when you click this URI, it does indeed pick up your userid, but asks you to enter the password anyway, notwithstanding that it's sitting right there in your address bar.). Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> 10/11/2008 10:16 AM Please respond to elharo To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com cc: John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, ext David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Passwords in the clear update noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > I think I agree with Dave Orchard here. MUST NOT is pretty strong. Let's > say I put up a Web site for my family, an example I've used before. I > want some barriers to casual access by others, but I really don't care > that much whether anyone breaks in to see the photos of my kids' birthday > party. In fact, many parents care a *great* deal that random strangers not be allowed to see photos of their kids. They are shocked and appalled when they discover that happening. I think we would be doing them a real disservice if we indicate that it's OK to post family information wiht passwords in the clear. If you really don't care about casual access by others, you only send the URL to friends and you don't link to or publish it. Maybe you set up robots.txt to indicate noindex. But that is not the use case for password protection. I think we need to recognize that anyone who establishes usernames and passwords for a page has a reasonable desire to only allow authorized users to enter. How much they care when unauthorized users break in is irrelevant. The vast majority of sites care a great deal about this, though some more than others. The point of a password is to prevent unauthorized access, and a use case that starts with the assumption that unauthorized access is unimportant contradicts the whole reason for having a password in the first place. What's really being argued here is that sometimes people put passwords on pages that don't really need them. True enough, but this is not something we need to consider in the finding. Do we really want to say, "Send passwords in the clear only when you don't need passwords at all?" -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Refactoring HTML Just Published! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 02:09:32 UTC