mcxNOW has no "Remote database", which means everything is incorporated on the one machine which doesn't have internet access. Secondly the reason hashing passwords is a "gold standard" is because everyone uses databases like SQL which have been hacked to death since the internet began. mcxNOW doesn't use these systems, it uses a custom database and the exchange server cannot be accessed on the internet. There is zero code to read passwords on the site which means it is impossible for an internet hacker to obtain passwords. Therefore the only way to get into the system is to be at the datacenter, then to understand the encryption, to reverse the binary, etc. This is beyond ludicrous to suggest it's a more probable event compared to any other system out there.
No it's beyond ludricous to suggest it's not possible there are holes in your security measures outside of a dodgy datacenter. It's laughable you think it's impossible there might be a hole somewhere you haven't thought of. The probability is non-zero, fact.
Multi-billion dollar companies with teams of the best minds in the industry have had their db's compromised by hackers, you're deluded to have your main argument as "welp we can't be hacked anyway LOL".
Meanwhile a typical exchange site that uses SQL can be broken from the internet. Yet if the SQL site uses password hashing it's somehow a "gold standard" compared to mcxNOW? Please. mcxNOW is *THE* standard because every single packet of information is controlled by the code from one person, I know everything that goes on within the exchange. There are no black boxes like others use in their php/sql/asp.net setup.
This is complete fluff in relation to my post. As far as 'gold standard', the SQL site that using password hashing and salting per password is doing a superior job to mcxnow in terms of password storage. Every single packet of information nonsense is simply irrelevant to what we are talking about here. Encrypted passwords could be retrieved in plaintext form by a hacker at your exchange Realsolid, however small the possibility, it's still a possibility. Honestly I'm not wanting to be rude here, but do you not understand this concept?
And email systems are ridiculously insecure. If an email is hacked from ANYWHERE then they can reset your exchange password and steal all your funds. Say you check your email at your mothers house and she has a virus. They log into your email, see you use mtgox and reset password. 24 hours later your account is drained. Your main PC doesn't even have to be compromised and email systems are among the highest compromised websites in existence. Most people probably aren't even aware their emails are hacked.
I addressed this point in my original message in anticipation of you making this weak argument. Yes you could check your email on a computer that has a virus. In the same way you could check your mcxnow account on a computer that has a virus. By extension that makes your own site 'ridiculously insecure'. If you have a keylogger on your machine you think the keylogger will collect the email password but never the mcxnow password? That makes no sense at all.
Your claim that email reset systems aren't insecure if "used properly" is easily extended to using a unique password at every site you use. It's really not that hard and the only reason you shouldn't be doing it is ignorance, not laziness.
The distinction between the two is if you implemented an email reset system properly the onus wouldn't fall on the customer but instead on the person who is responsible for running the exchange.
Just using a unique password would make this a zero probability. This is such a non issue.
That doesn't make any sense in relation to what I wrote:
It is therefore a non-zero probability that a hacker could gain everyone's passwords by your poor decision to employ encryption; using hashing+salting would make this a zero probability.
If everyone used a strong, unique password (never going to happen) the hacker gaining access to all those passwords would still be a non-zero probability. I guess what you tried to say is, if everyone used a strong, unique password then it wouldn't matter if a hacker gained access to everyone's passwords - however people do re-use their passwords unfortunately, a good programmer would design for this and use the standard approach of hashing and salting - it's very, very little effort. This is all completely standard, textbook web programming stuff you'll find on any book or lecture on the subject.
Do not confuse me as someone who is claiming the exchange is insecure. I am simply explaining that their password storage procedure is crap.
As a separate note,
ethically Realsolid should say on his sign up page that passwords can be decrypted to their plaintext format by the admin and are thus readable by him. Because that is the case here. It will also encourage and explain to users one reason why they have to use a unique, strong password just for mcxnow.
