Hacker News Reader

Comment by alanbernstein | Hacker News Reader

So does this justify my use of a password manager with no browser integration, and all the microseconds of lost productivity due to copying and pasting passwords all the time?

View on HN

Pasting a password into a phishing site because you don't have the browser checking the domain for you seems like a bigger risk than being exploited by something like this.

Agreed. The only time I nearly lost an account to phishing it was because I manually copy-pasted my credentials. It's an easy mistake to make, especially if you happen to be tired or distracted.

You paste the HTTPS login URL from your password manager entry THEN log into the page after the browser validates the HTTPS certificate

One would argue that then you're way beyond "microseconds of lost productivity".

I have a wrapper script for pass (passwordstore.org) named pass-open that selects a password file using fzf, copies the included password and opens the included URL (if there is one). Also, my password files may include web browser names and profile names because I log into sites using different web browsers and profiles.

So in addition to being my password manager, pass and my wrapper script are my cross-browser bookmark manager, which is convenient because I'm usually in a terminal emulator.

I've never understood why people at HN use graphical password managers that are integrated into web browsers and autofill, etc. (but I've never understood why people at HN use most of the graphical software they use).

You’re not crazy, but we are in the minority.

Most people, self-professed hackers included, are more comfortable in the browser sandbox than the terminal emulator sandbox.

pass has a better UX than any password manager I’ve ever been compelled to use for work. Especially when used in the way you describe, as your index to the browser (rather than as a sidecar to the browser).

That's what I do for certain types of sites, such as bill-payments, and I don't lose any productivity. It does take time, yes, but there isn't enough time lost that would inhibit productivity.

By around 6 orders of magnitute :-)

Millions and millions of microseconds lost.

Good mitigation of that would be for a password manager to store an url along with password.

Parent comment was precisely using this as a pro for in-browser password managers (or extensions). They can check the current domain. A standalone desktop app can't do that (well it can, but it's a bit more complicated to truly understand what tab you're currently looking at, and intend to use a password with)

To clarify: I suggested to store url in the password manager so that when I want to login somewhere, I go the the manager, locate the account, copy paste url stored there into url bar of the browser in a new tab, and then do the same with actual credentials. There is no room for any phishing in such case.

That said I understand that when a password manager is closely integrated with (or even within) a browser, it can do more checking for me, and make the whole experience nicer. But such integration is imho not a silver bullet, and there are downsides which comes with this approach as well.

That is usually what password managers do.

If you're not using SSO/central identity providers and use each site's own login form instead you're much less likely to encounter an unexpected login form which makes any such form suspicious.

The classic phishing is an email from e.g. Facebook saying your account is at risk of something. So you click the Facebook link and sign in to Facebook (uh oh that was actually a phishing site pretending to be Facebook). I don't see how avoiding SSO helps with this.

Email is a separate topic. I have a domain and use a separate address for each service. So phishing tends to go to the wrong address and thus the wrong folder, which makes things pretty obvious.

My point is I don't see how whether you use SSO or not is relevant. If you use SSO, you could fall for an SSO phishing page. If you don't use SSO you could fall for a non-SSO phishing page.

If your email is hidden, then someone might send you a phishing link via a HN reply. The reply might link to a website that has a domain similar to Facebook and presents a Facebook phishing login.

My experience with SSO workflows is that they often ask for reauthentication due to limited credential timeouts. They pop up randomly as you visit sites you're used to visit.

On the other hand site-specific logins tend to last longer which means I'm unlikely to encounter a login prompt as part of regular browsing.

To given an example, github only prompts me for my personal credentials when I use the security settings or to authorize a bot. This doesn't happen often, so it's somewhat surprising and makes me check. But my $WORK SSO tied to their github org (and a whole bunch of other things) wants me to log in every other day. This makes more less likely to check since it's forced routine.

>But my $WORK SSO tied to their github org (and a whole bunch of other things) wants me to log in every other day.

I don't think consumer SSO does that. I think Facebook and Google generally try to avoid logging users out randomly because it causes user annoyance as well as user loss (because a lot of users might not remember their passwords or bother logging back in again).

Your work SSO can tolerate a bad user experience in order to have higher security. You're being paid to log in every day. Facebook and Google users aren't being paid to log in every day, so many of them won't.

I used to use KeePassX (and KeePassXC) for over a decade and I know a lot of people hate it because it doesn't have online syncing and you have to go out of your way to use yet another app to get it to integrate into a browser.

But one of the wonderful things it does over every other password manager is Auto-Fill based on a keybinding.

It would look at the Window Title and find the available passwords that matched. This was infinitely more useful than most browser-plugins that look at URL within the browser.

Because now I could have it fill out auth for Windows shares.

If a website has a .htaccess User/Pass window - most browser plugins wont autofill this, but KeePassX(C) could.

Terminal? I had all my SSH Passphrased and Sudo passwords in KeepassX(C) and could auto-fill on keybinding.

It was wonderful.

After failing to backup my database a few times and losing portions of newly added passwords I finally threw in the towel and went with Bitwarden.

and bitwarden checks a lot of boxes - open source, you can self-host if you wish, third party audits, a good use of encryption, cross-platform both for browsers and desktop/mobile OSes.

but man do i miss just autofilling with a keypress and not reaching for the mouse and autofilling in places outside of the browser.

Anyways, I mention this b/c it's way better than manually copying/pasting. The Auto-fill would work by tossing it to the clipboard just long enough to do the auto-fill and then clearing the clipboard. So it was safer than manual copy/paste too.

> It would look at the Window Title and find the available passwords that matched.

Ew that sounds awful for security and ripe for phishing. Nothing stops a site from setting the title to whatever they want, at least with a browser extension it only shows credentials when the domain matches, giving you a chance to second-guess it.

Seriously, if I own faceboook.com and I just set my title to Facebook, this would copy in my facebook password? Sounds really really bad!

I have used KeepassXC for almost a decade and never used that title matching feature.

Control-U all the way

I think it's great that you use it in a way that protects you by always starting your workflow from your password manager and copying the URL into your browser. But I think it's important to recognize that 1. this requires extra steps, and 2. this represents a drastic change in workflow for the vast majority of users. Your solution will not work for most people.

It doesn't automatically fill it in by landing on the page. It can detect how to autofill, and what password to use, based on window title.

Your scenario still depends on the person landing on a phishing site and choosing to attempt a login.

I think the distinction you're trying to make means zilch, 1. this is the normal login flow for these users, 2. this tech provides zero protection from phishing attacks, 3. an extension does provide protection from phishing attacks by automatically comparing the saved domain vs the page's domain byte-for-byte on every visit and not suggesting a login if the actual domain doesn't match, 4. humans have empirically proven that they cannot do 3 reliably. There is a first hand experience of this fact in this very thread: "The only time I nearly lost an account to phishing it was because I manually copy-pasted my credentials.".

"choosing to attempt to login" is just bare-faced whitewashing in order to blame the user for falling prey to a phishing attack and deny that this is a problem that password managers should solve.

Ah, see that's where I didn't understand you.

I did not make the assumption that my offline password manager should integrate with my web browser to provide phishing protection. That's not a bad idea! I'm not denying it's something password managers could solve. I just don't rely on it.

Interesting, I've been using KeePassX(C) for over a decade too. I store the .kbdx file in a Dropbox folder and can access it from other devices. Never ran into issues with this setup.

At least in the bitwarden chrome extension you can autofill with a keyboard shortcut (and I assume in the ones for other browsers too). On mac os it defaults to CMD+shift+L. But that obviously doesn't work outside of the browser. Still might be interested for you.

I've had an awful time getting this to work consistently. Same with the prompting to add/update a new entry upon creating/changing a password.

KeePass can emulate a keyboard and type your credentials for you. But it's initiated from the KeePass app instead of requesting it from the browser. It is slower than just having it autofilled but faster than copying it to your clipboard (where other programs might have access to it).

My muscle memory copies the URL from the browser into the Keepass search bar. Thus, I get more-or-less protection from rogue URLs as well - and I'm forced to look at the URL with my eyeballs.

IMHO - keepass was way faster via keybinding than dragging your mouse to a browser plugin drop down.

Not sure what other managers you’ve used but with 1Password I just press cmd+shift+x to show a popover, arrow keys to choose the account, then press enter. No mouse needed.

For anyone looking for a personal password manager that is not a browser extension but also provides the functionality to auto-type passwords into the focused field I highly recommend codebook

https://www.zetetic.net/codebook/

It's a one-time fee (per device~ish) and you can connect & sync it to Google Drive, Dropbox, Local folder, or to another device over WiFi. I've been using it for a few years and it has great iPhone and macOS integration. The Windows integration is also good but not quite as smooth as being integrated with FaceID or thumb print ID.

Yes, but a much better argument against doing that:

If you keep your passwords separate from your browser then you are guaranteed to be safe from a browser exploit.

By default your computer and mobile phone OS and browsers likely let webpages and apps read your system clipboard without asking permission first.

Most desktop/laptop browsers don't provide clipboard read access without asking permission first. Mobile is another thing tho.

Keepass can clear the clipboard after pasting.

Your clipboard has a huge attack surface.

I'm paranoid about putting a password into the clipboard. Some OS's keep a clipboard history or some users have software that does this.

Another worry is that some app ecosystems provide a way to read my clipboard over their permission model. With this permission in hand, surveillance capitalists will include it as part of their fingerprinting techniques. So even if you trust those platforms, you also have to trust the packet headed their way and what they do with it.

With Linux/KDE desktop and KeePassXC, the password manager removes the copied text from the clipboard and the clipboard history after a short (configurable) delay.

I was using Windows Terminal the other day and it does not copy text after selection. Ended up pasting a password instead...

I think the only solution here is to not use an OS designed from the ground up by surveillance capitalists.

That’s hard if your job depends on access to a windows only program like photoshop or a game engine (unity and unreal editors technically work on Linux, but it’s really painful)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com