Subject: Burn Calories as you chew

From: Leaked: DocOz Episode Spoiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:06:47 -0700

Being Fat is not Your Fate
Train your body to burn calories round the clock, So you can lose weight
while you chew. 

~ Episode Spoiler ~

DocOz has perfected his Strategy so you can do it in 1-Step.
(No gym or starving involved)

View 1 Step Plan Here -> http://www.wawwater.com/Oz/results/video.index
[Episode Clip No 657]

DocOz Show Guide 
To View Archives, go here -> http://www.wawwater.com/Oz/results/video.index

to stop further docoz updates - write Member Update Systems_ write "stop" to 9 1 6 7-ROAD-177-Oakwood, OH 45873
or http://www.wawwater.com/43kt/43t/g4.et43

he question stated that the password should be recoverable to plaintext, so this is a requirement. 2. I'm using asymmetric encryption here and not symmetric encryption. The key to decrypt is not necessary for daily operations and can be kept in a bank safe. The argumentation in the link is valid, but does not apply to this situation.   stefanw Feb 17 '10 at 21:59
41	  	
True, but could you agree that given the requirements this is the most responsible way of doing it? You can hit me all day with your CWE-257, it's not going to change the interesting problem of safely storing and working with credentials and being able to recovering them to their original form if required.   stefanw Feb 18 '10 at 9:53
5	  	
Windows Recovery Agent is also a poor example here, as it deals with actual encryption, not password management. An encryption key is not the same as a password; the rules and practices surrounding each are completely different. Encryption and authentication are not the same. Encryption is for privacy - a key is used to protect data. Authentication is for identity, where the key is the data (it is one factor in the authentication process). So I repeat, encryption and authentication are not the same. You cannot validly apply the principles of one to the other.   Aaronaught Feb 18 '10 at 18:15 
10	  	
+1 Where's the point in obsessively insisting on CWE-257? It's a weakness (CWE), not a vulnerability (CVE). Comparing recoverable passwords with buffer overflows is comparing apples and oranges. Simply make sure the client understands the problem (let him sign something that says so - otherwise he might not remember anything if in question) and go ahead. Additionally, required security measures depend on the value of the system and potential risk of an attack. If a successful attacker could only cancel some newsletter subscriptions, there's no reason to argue about any issueUnless you're in the military (in which case you'll have much more strict security anyway), that policy is just not going to happen, and it still doesn't protect against malicious insiders (either they can conspire or the sysadmin can install a few keyloggers - in some companies such things are standard). Even if it did happen, it would make the system basically useless for password recovery. I know you're just an
 swering the question that was asked, and I don't have a problem with that; my problem is with the suggestion that this is secure enough to be responsibly used in production.   Aaronaught Feb 18 '10 at 20:05
  	  	
@Everyone, thank you guys for backing me up!   Rook Feb 18 '10 at 20:26
  	  	
@Devio, Yes, storing passwords in a recoverable format is a vulnerability. Did you read the link?   Rook Feb 18 '10 at 20:31
4	  	
All true. I wouldn't build such a system, I took the question as an abstract challenge with given requirements. On a side note: if keyloggers are involved, everything goes: you can get the password right from the people.   stefanw Feb 18 '10 at 20:31
1	  	
@stefanw: Good solution.   Gladwin B Feb 22 '10 at 17:32
2	  	
@Shane: To avoid the issue of someone internally misusing private key, you could further double encrypt password using symmetric key as some info that user has (birth palce, pet name, etc.) but is not stored in the system. To recover password user provides key using which you decrypt and then again re-decrypt using private key to get orignal password.   Gladwin B Feb 22 '10 at 17:38
2	  	
In one company I worked for we had a information security team, if a significant security threat was identified with a proposed system, a Director of company had to sign a form saying they understood the risk and were happy for the system to go ahead...   Jason Roberts Feb 23 '10 at 15:56
10	  	
+1 Where's the point in obsessively insisting on CWE-257? It's a weakness (CWE), not a vulnerability (CVE). Comparing recoverable passwords with buffer overflows is comparing apples and oranges. Simply make sure the client understands the problem (let him sign something that says so - otherwise he might not remember anything if in question) and go ahead. Additionally, required security measures depend on the value of the system and potential risk of an attack. If a successful attacker could only cancel some newsletter subscriptions, there's no reason to argue about any issues.   sfussenegger Feb 23 '10 at 17:19