1SoDgR-0006hd-3f
for users@???; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:07:23 +0000
Received: from cpc2-midd5-0-0-cust267.11-1.cable.virginmedia.com
([82.7.225.12] helo=emerald.zircon.org.uk)
by zircon.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <pjb@???>)
id 1SoDgF-00057t-10
for users@???; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:07:13 +0100
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=emerald.lothlann.freeserve.co.uk)
by emerald.zircon.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <pjb@???>)
id 1SoDgF-0005Ge-70; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:07:11 +0100
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:06:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Phil Brooke <phil-bitfolk-users@???>
To: users@???
In-Reply-To: <201207081645.39704.andyparkins@???>
Message-ID: <1207091331520.3156.UDXSUCGA%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
References: <20120707130537.GA11695@???>
<201207081645.39704.andyparkins@???>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
X-Topal-Fcc: bitfolk-users
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-709820376-1341839178=:3156"
X-Topal-SPF: yes
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
2001:ba8:1f1:f2a1::2 (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
09 Jul 2012 13:07:23 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f2a1::2
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: pjb@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Proving that you are you
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:07:24 -0000
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-709820376-1341839178=:3156
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Hi,
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012, Andy Smith wrote:
> Today a customer popped up on IRC saying that they had broken their
> VPS and couldn't remember their account details in order to use the
> console / rescue VM.
> [=E2=80=A6]
As some others have replied, I'd be unhappy with the use of utility
bills.
An interface to upload allowed OpenPGP keys seems the best option so
far (multiple keys as a possibility).
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Mathew Newton wrote:
> My e-mail is hosted on my VPS so if it's down then the e-mail password
> reset function would be no good to me anyway.
Same for me. But I could use a random other email account and sign using=
=20
a pre-arranged crypto key.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Nigel Rantor wrote:
> Given that I think it is reasonable to expect people who turn it off to=
=20
> perform some extra work to ensure they can be authenticated if the worst=
=20
> happens and they lose private keys, forget pass-phrases etc.
Ultimately, it is possible to lose access to most credentials (e.g., lost=
=20
VPS, normal email out of action, lost private keys / passphrases).
Re-identification is hard, and I guess the question is really one of how=20
much is required, or if the user is willing for it to happen at all.
> I do like the idea of asking the customer to send you a set amount using =
the=20
> account they last used to pay for the service itself.
But only if they haven't moved accounts (okay, it's been some years since=
=20
I moved banks, but I know some who change every year or two).
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Gavin Westwood wrote:
> I like this idea and second the not using stock questions. The number
> of websites where I have had to put my mother's maiden name and name of
> [...]
I can never remember what I wrote for most of these question-answer=20
combinations=E2=80=A6 I find them relatively useless as a recovery mechanis=
m.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Andy Parkins wrote:
> In short: paranoia. Disabling password reset implies a level of security=
=20
> that should be maintained. It's saying "I take full responsibility for t=
he=20
> password to this VPS, and if I lose it, I accept that I may never get acc=
ess=20
> again".
Perhaps the control panel could offer a range of options covering
different tastes/tolerances from indifferent to very paranoid. But
that makes it all very complicated.
So my end suggestion is:
- Hold a list of OpenPGP keys that are authorised for
resets/recovery, via the panel.
- As well as the "Allow password reset" switch, add two more, one for
reset via OpenPGP keys, and a final one so that the user can state
that they never want any other mechanism using (i.e., if they lose
their password, etc they "accept that I may never get access
again"). Probably need to make that last one jump through some
confirmation hoops....
For those who are prepared to accept other reidentification, a
combination of government ID combined with fresh photos plus some form
of bank transaction would be reasonable. Stick it on the policy page
and link it against that last switch.
(Aside: Has Bitfolk had any instances of customers being
incapacitated (or dying) and relatives needing to recover access to
the VPS? E.g., if it's used for domestic email?)
Cheers,
Phil.
--=20
Phil Brooke OpenPGP key: 0x2F0EC78A
--8323328-709820376-1341839178=:3156--
From andy@??? Mon Jul 09 15:10:48 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1SoFbr-0003cR-K1
for users@???; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:10:47 +0000
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:10:47 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120709151047.GW11695@???>
References: <20120707130537.GA11695@???>
<201207081645.39704.andyparkins@???>
<1207091331520.3156.UDXSUCGA%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8QM4kKE+nfbBA4vJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1207091331520.3156.UDXSUCGA%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
09 Jul 2012 15:10:47 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: *****
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.9 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW, HK_SCAM_N2,
NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * 3.8 HK_SCAM_N2 BODY: HK_SCAM_N2
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
* 2.1 ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW Appears to be advance fee fraud (Nigerian 419)
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Proving that you are you
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitf
