🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>> Much better is simply keeping the encrypted passwords in a file that is
>>>> not publicly readable.  ...
>
> It is also required by even the lowest level of the DOD Trusted Computer
> Systems Evaluation Criteria (C1).  From section 2.1.2.1., "Identification
> and Authentication":  "The TCB [Trusted Computing Base] shall protect
> authentication data so that it cannot be accessed by any unauthorized user."

In a traditional UN*X system with a publicly readable password file,
the passwords *are* protected (at least allegedly) using encryption.

Suggestions like the one of read protecting the password file *and*
encrypting it raise a red flag for me.  If the encryption scheme is good,
then read protecting the passwords is unnecessary.  Similarly, if the
read protection on the password file really works, then encrypting the
passwords is a waste of time.  More generally, if there are two indepen-
dent security checks on a system, and an intruder can subvert the first
security check with effort E1 and the second security check with effort
E1, then the total effort to crack the system is E1+E2.  This is less
than 2*max(E1, E2), so very little is lost by abandoning one of the two
security checks.

In fact, eliminating one of the security checks may make your system
*more* secure.  One reason is that simpler systems are more likely to
be correct.  More important is the discipline enforced by chosing one
feature or the other.  If you retain both features, then when you look
at feature A and discover it is not really very good, you can figure
that it doesn't matter because feature B will keep out any intruders
who get past feature A.  And then when you look at feature B you can
ignore the holes in it on the assumption that feature A will keep in-
truders from getting that far anyway.  A system in which an intruder
must bypass 2 or 3 ineffective security mechanisms is not much harder
to penetrate than a system with only one ineffective security mechan-
ism.  The discipline of limiting yourself to one security mechanism is
that it encourages you to design one that works.
				Kenneth Almquist
				ka@june.cs.washington.edu