GLBSE 2.0, Is safer now.

[El Cabron]

First of all I do not like to talk in public about this sort of stuff but I am doing so because I have a duty to my shareholders and people who hold my assets.  I apologize in advance. Nafario will be PMed a link to this thread.

GLBSE 1.0 was extremely solid. For the user to be at fault for a hack not only did someone need to have access to their physical computer but they also needed the password. I only kept the account on one computer and encrypted the HDD. If I got hacked it was not going to be my fault.
GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60489.msg829923#msg829923

Nefario himself understand how risky this is and claims he will take no responsibility. I understand that point of view and I am going to make it very clear that I also take no responsibility!

Hold assets created by me at your own risk. If I am hacked I will take no responsibility. Why? My account is attached to a free e-mail account that I have used for years on public computers all over the world. Would I even dream of putting 1000s of bitcoins on the security of this free junk mail account? No, never and to do so would be negligent! This was forced upon me without warning or consent!

Sunday morning I woke up and found that I could not get into my GLBSE account. I was almost physically ill because I knew the password I was using was correct. I had no idea what was wrong. I first checked the stock prices to see if there was a massive sell off on things I held. There was not. This made me feel better. However there is a massive amount of bitcoin in that account and I had no idea if it was still there or not. I messaged and e-mail Nefario. He did not get back to me for 24 hours and finally told me that he is having problems with my account.

I do not want to deal with level of stress again so I’m making it very clear now that I will not be held responsible for what I consider to be Nefario’s negligence. Right now I still do not have access to my account and assume no one else does either.

This whole thing just blows me away. I’m truly in shock.

[1714499346]

1714499346

[1714499346]

1714499346

[1714499346]

1714499346

[schnell]

+1 to this. Have you got your account back yet?
I personally am not as bothered because all I have is about 40 shares of TyGrr-Bank but even then I am concerned and see no benefits of GLBSE 2.0.
Just like blockchain.info wallet, it is trusted with thousands of bitcoin, and wouldn't be nearly as popular if they didn't only store encrypted wallets on their server.

EDIT: Would it be too hard to just create your own front end for shares? It would mean you can stop people selling for inflated prices if you want, and eliminate the glbse tx fees. You could make it so you sell to and buy from you for set prices, nothing else.

[N12]

GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

What is not solid about that? Take care of your passwords and make them secure enough with something like KeePass. Most users on most Bitcoin exchanges have the same kind of protection.

You can take your password and encrypt it exactly like you encrypted your private key if you want.

I agree though that a 2nd auth with your phone would be preferable here, but I don’t think your topic’s title is appropriate, because yes, having a PW is safe if you can take care of it.

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

[Mushoz]

One of the only reasons why I'm trading with ~10 BTC over there, rather than 100+
I'd really like this to get fixed/improved, as I'd love to learn more about trading shares and bonds (just trying things out atm).
How was the security done on GLBSE 1.0 that you needed psychical access to your computer?
And why wasn't this implemented in version 2.0?

[Mushoz]

GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

What is not solid about that? Take care of your passwords and make them secure enough with something like KeePass. Most users on most Bitcoin exchanges have the same kind of protection.

You can take your password and encrypt it exactly like you encrypted your private key if you want.

I agree though that a 2nd auth with your phone would be preferable here, but I don’t think your topic’s title is appropriate, because yes, having a PW is safe if you can take care of it.

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

I can keep my password safe but he forced me to use an account that was not safe. To get the password to that account all you need to know is *censored*. Had I known that this feature would have been implemented I would have never used that e-mail address. Hell I doubt I would have even signed up.

What do you think the title of this thread should be? I am open to changing it if you have a better idea.

Can you please edit your post and remove what people need to know? You're only making it easier for people to hijack your account. I agree current security is lackluster for this site if they want to become big, but you've made your point already. No need to make it easier for people

[N12]

OK, I agree that it is an issue in the sense that you should have been able to adjust prior, and people should be able to change their e-mail adress now with their GLBSE password.

But this is not an issue that has to do with whether GLBSE is safe but if your email account you registered with is safe …

One of the only reasons why I'm trading with ~10 BTC over there, rather than 100+
I'd really like this to get fixed/improved, as I'd love to learn more about trading shares and bonds (just trying things out atm).
How was the security done on GLBSE 1.0 that you needed psychical access to your computer?
And why wasn't this implemented in version 2.0?

How can you expect "this" to be fixed when you don’t even know what should be done about it? The first version of GLBSE used a long string representing your private key in addition to your password which you stored on your computer. You can do the exact same thing today and store both your email password and GLBSE password encrypted on your computer – no difference.

And the reason it got changed is that noone used GLBSE due to it, because it severely cut into usability. GLBSE 2.0 is way more popular now.

The only thing that can be done is add multifactor authentication, and it definitely should be done.

And yes, EDIT YOUR PREVIOUS POST NOW. I reported it.

[roomservice]

GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

What is not solid about that? Take care of your passwords and make them secure enough with something like KeePass. Most users on most Bitcoin exchanges have the same kind of protection.

You can take your password and encrypt it exactly like you encrypted your private key if you want.

I agree though that a 2nd auth with your phone would be preferable here, but I don’t think your topic’s title is appropriate, because yes, having a PW is safe if you can take care of it.

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

I can keep my password safe but he forced me to use an account that was not safe. To get the password to that account all you need to know is what city I was born in. Had I known that this feature would have been implemented I would have never used that e-mail address. Hell I doubt I would have even signed up.

What do you think the title of this thread should be? I am open to changing it if you have a better idea.

Just pm Nefario and ask him to change your email address? Why this drama?

[mila]

title proposal:

bring back web keys. say no to user name / password authentication

[rjk]

title proposal:

bring back web keys. say no to user name / password authentication

Crypto keys are only as strong as the user's ability to secure his computer and his passphrase.

2 factor auth is a better idea. Yubikey, matrix card, etc. And no, "security questions" are NOT 2 factor auth.

[mila]

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

once your email account is pwned you have a attack vector that bypasses glbse

[N12]

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

once your email account is pwned you have a attack vector that bypasses glbse

Do you know how many people lost their private key and could not prove that their account was theirs on GLBSE?

I’ve told Nefario from the start that private keys are a bad idea because people cannot and will not secure them, and it actually decreases usability. He himself had a hardcore stance like you did, but he became convinced otherwise and so he built GLBSE 2.0.

Now compare the popularity of nick/pw GLBSE 2.0 with the private key original GLBSE.

[guruvan]

2 step auth w/ google authenticator would be a good thing. Passwd + key option would be cool too. Being able to turn off email password reset would be very very nice.

using a secure email account for financial services to email you seems crucial.

I'm not sure what disturbs me the most about this thread. There are several issues to ponder.

[mila]

@Blitzboom I've no idea how many people lost their keys from 1.0 but I'm sure it's harder to brute force a key pair then pwning an email, if very frequently all it needs is to answer a question "did you get laid this year? y/n"

[Nefario]

GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

What is not solid about that? Take care of your passwords and make them secure enough with something like KeePass. Most users on most Bitcoin exchanges have the same kind of protection.

You can take your password and encrypt it exactly like you encrypted your private key if you want.

I agree though that a 2nd auth with your phone would be preferable here, but I don’t think your topic’s title is appropriate, because yes, having a PW is safe if you can take care of it.

Much more concerning is the question whether GLBSE now has any exploitable vulnerabilities etc., I would really like to see Patrick Strateman (from Intersango, where Nefario works too) do some penetration testing like he did with other exchanges if it hasn’t yet happened.

I can keep my password safe but he forced me to use an account that was not safe. To get the password to that account all you need to know is what city I was born in. Had I known that this feature would have been implemented I would have never used that e-mail address. Hell I doubt I would have even signed up.

What do you think the title of this thread should be? I am open to changing it if you have a better idea.

Just pm Nefario and ask him to change your email address? Why this drama?

The drama because I've locked his account and asked for ID verification.

His reply:

Sorry about this but I am not going to take the fall for this if it goes sideways.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75047.0

I had also told him about a policy I'd like to implement, reducing the number of assets a single account/person can create, although I think that can wait until another time, certainly until this gets sorted out.

I'll unlock it as soon as he provides this information.

GLBSE2.0 is nothing close to solid. All you need now to get access to someone’s account is their e-mail address and password. That is it!

This is complete rubbish, Chaang is using Gmail, which itself uses two factor authentication, and is as secure as any internet connected system available. It's weakness are the users, their choice of password (password strength) and whether they re-use that password.

A strong, single use password is as good as it gets without adding two factor authentication (something I'm researching).

Keeping in mind that all other exchanges and most other websites do the same, username/password, account recovery through email GLBSE2.0 is not exceptionally more or less secure.

I'm a very reasonable person, and I find it unsettling how quickly this has been splashed across several threads on the forums. About 5 hours after I emailed him asking (asking, not demanding) for proof of identity, in a clear attempt to pressure me to unlock his account.

Nefario

[BadBear]

I'm still stuck on the whole email account with the name of x as his password (I'll be nice and not say it  ), that's just lazy.

[Nefario]

Regarding lost keys from 1.0

I spent A LOT OF TIME, dealing with this issue, a lot of people lost their keys, as a result the security of the system as a whole was reduced as without the keys people were unable to recover their accounts.

Cryptographically the system was really well secured, sadly people didn't look after their keys so it didn't work.

[copumpkin]

"Security questions" are often the weak point of many authentication systems. If indeed all it takes (I don't use GLBSE) is to know your birth city, that is clearly insufficient security. Ask about first pet names if you must have security questions at all, but leave biographical data that can be scraped from facebook out of it.

[Nefario]

"Security questions" are often the weak point of many authentication systems. If indeed all it takes (I don't use GLBSE) is to know your birth city, that is clearly insufficient security. Ask about first pet names if you must have security questions at all, but leave biographical data that can be scraped from facebook out of it.

I'm certainly not going to be doing that.

[memvola]

How difficult is it to support (optional) GPG encrypted e-mails? This is one feature I wish all services adopted.

[Nefario]

How difficult is it to support (optional) GPG encrypted e-mails? This is one feature I wish all services adopted.

If I remember correctly, when I was starting with GLBSE1.0 the initial crypto development it was quite a pain and something I had trouble with, it's certainly doable