eHarmony falls prey to LinkedIn crypto crackers

Powered by SC Magazine
 

But company mum on details.

Dating site eHarmony has confirmed user passwords were leaked in a massive cache uploaded to the internet this week.

The passwords did not contain account usernames, according to the adult dating company.

"After investigating reports of compromised passwords, we have found that a small fraction of our user base has been affected," the company said on its blog.

The passwords were contained in the same dump that exposed potentially 6.5 million LinkedIn users.

News broke about the leak of unsalted LinkedIn passwords after user dwdm uploaded the stolen cache to the cryptographic boffin web site insidepro.

Password crackers quickly got to work assisting dwdm to break the SHA-1 cryptographic function.

The words eHarmony and harmony were cited in a second list on the web site but it remained unclear from where the passwords were stolen.

User dwdm did not respond to questions by SC Magazine about the origins of the cache.

EHarmony has reset passwords for "affected" accounts

Copyright © SC Magazine, Australia


eHarmony falls prey to LinkedIn crypto crackers
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  3%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  7%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  2%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1803

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?