Kurt Got Got

> They just rely on you being busy, or out, or tired, and just not checking closely enough

Any site that wants to phish you will either just not show the passkey flow and hope you forget or show it and make it look like it failed and pop up a helpful message about being able to register a new Passkey once you're logged in. And Passkeys are so finicky in browsers that I'd buy it.

> Fly.io supports Google and GitHub as Identity Providers[1]

How about you just support SAML like a real enterprise vendor, so IdP-specific support isn't your problem anymore? I get it, SAML is hard, but it's really the One True Path when it comes to this stuff.

[1] https://fly.io/docs/security/sso/

It's always possible to have issues, of course, and to make mistakes. But there's a risk profile to this kind of stuff that doesn't align well with how certain people work. Yet those same people will jump on these to fix it up!

> the 1Password browser plugin would have noticed that “members-x.com” wasn’t an “x.com” host.

But shared accounts are tricky here, like the post says it's not part of their IdP / SSO and can't be, so it has to be something different. Yes, they can and should use Passkeys and/or 1password browser integration, but if you only have a few shared accounts, that difference makes for a different workflow regardless.

"I went to the link which is on mailchimp-sso.com and entered my credentials which - crucially - did not auto-complete from 1Password. I then entered the OTP and the page hung. Moments later, the penny dropped, and I logged onto the official website, which Mailchimp confirmed via a notification email which showed my London IP address:"

There are a _lot_ of drivers for devices on a default windows install. There are a _lot more_ if you allow for Windows Update to install drivers for devices (which it does by default). I would not trust all of them to be secure against a malicious device.

I know this is not how stuxxnet worked (instead using a vulnerability in how LNK files were shown in explorer.exe as the exploit), but that just goes to show how much surface there is to attack using this kind of USB stick.

And yeah, people still routinely plug random USBs in their computers. The average person is simultaneously curious and oblivious to this kind of threat (and I don't blame them - this kind of threat is hard to explain to a lay person).

The enrichment facility had an air-gapped network, and just like our air-gapped networks, they had security requirements that mandated continuous anti-virus definition updates. The AV updates were brought in on a USB thumb drive that had been infected, because it WASN'T air-gapped when the updates were loaded. Obviously their AV tools didn't detect Stuxnet, because it was a state-sponsored, targeted attack, and not in the AV definition database.

So they were a victim of their own security policies, which were very effectively exploited.

(They will run programs, though. They always do.)

These devices want a physical interaction (this is called "User present") for most operations, typically signified by having a push button or contact sensor, so the attacker needs to have a proof of identity ready to sign, send that over - then persuade the user to push the button or whatever. It's not that difficult but it's one more step and if that doesn't work you wasted your shot.

But, haven’t there been bugs where operating systems will auto run some executable as soon as the USB is plugged in? So, just to be paranoid, I’d classify just plugging the thing in as “running random executables.” At least as a non-security guy.

I wonder if anyone has tried going to a local staples or bestbuy something, and slipping the person at the register a bribe… “if anyone from so-and-so corp buys a flash drive here, put this one in their bag instead.”

Anyway, best to just put glue in the USB ports I guess.

It feels to me more like OSes ought to be more secure. But USB devices are extremely convenient.

Relevant: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/10/security_desi...

I got got when they sent out a phishing test email disguised as a survey of user satisfaction with the IT department. Honestly I couldn't even be mad about it - it looked like all those other sketchy corporate surveys complete with a link to a domain similar to Qualtrics (I think it was one or two letters off).

Are your phishing emails good? If so if you don't mind name dropping the company so I can make a pitch to switch to them.

These are so obviously useless. When the majority of your email has a warning banner it stops to be any sort of warning. It's like being at "code orange" for 20 years after 9/11; no-one maintained "heightened security awareness" for decades, it just became something else to filter.

So, of course, we got to a point as a company where no one opened any email or clicked any link ever. This caused HR pain every year during open-enrollment season, for other annual trainings, etc.

At one point they started putting “THIS IS NOT A PHISH” in big red letters at the top of the email body to get folks to open emails and handle paperwork.

So then our trainers stole the “NOT A PHISH” header and got almost the entire company with that one email.

For what it's worth, all vendors I've worked with in that space report on both. I'm pretty sure even o365's built-in (and rather crude) tool reports both on "clicked link" and "submitted credentials". I'd estimate it's more likely your employer was able to tell the difference, but didn't both differentiating between the two when assigning follow-up training because just clicking is bad enough.

The avenue for catching this is that the password manager’s autofill won’t work on the phishing site, and the user could notice that and catch that it’s a malicious domain