G Suite'n'sour: Google resets passwords after storing some unhashed creds for months, years

Biz app login details encrypted at rest, though, ad giant insists


Google admitted Tuesday its paid-for G Suite of cloudy apps aimed at businesses stored some user passwords in plaintext albeit in an encrypted form.

Administrators of accounts affected by the security blunder were warned via email that, in certain circumstances, passwords had not been hashed. Hashing is a standard industry practice that protects credentials by scrambling them using a one-way encryption algorithm.

Google was at pains to stress it was the enterprise non-consumer version of G Suite affected, that there were no signs of misuse of the passwords, and that the passwords were encrypted at rest on disk – though, we note, hashing them would have fully secured the sensitive info.

Before we get to the threat model part of this, there are essentially two security cockups at play here. The first involves a G Suite feature available from 2005 that allowed organizations' admins to set their G Suite users' passwords via the Google account admin console. That feature, designed for IT staff to help new colleagues set their passwords and log in, did not hash these passwords.

The second involves recording some user passwords in plaintext on disk, as they logged in, and keeping these unhashed credentials around for 14 days at a time, again encrypted at rest. This practice started in January this year, during attempts by Googlers to troubleshoot their login system, and has been stopped.

On the first issue, Suzanne Frey, Google veep of engineering and cloud trust, explained:

In our enterprise product, G Suite, we had previously provided domain administrators with tools to set and recover passwords because that was a common feature request. The tool (located in the admin console) allowed administrators to upload or manually set user passwords for their company’s users. The intent was to help them with onboarding new users; e.g., a new employee could receive their account information on their first day of work, and for account recovery. The functionality to recover passwords this way no longer exists.

We made an error when implementing this functionality back in 2005: The admin console stored a copy of the unhashed password. This practice did not live up to our standards. To be clear, these passwords remained in our secure encrypted infrastructure. This issue has been fixed and we have seen no evidence of improper access to or misuse of the affected passwords.

On the second issue, Frey continued:

In addition, as we were troubleshooting new G Suite customer sign-up flows, we discovered that starting in January 2019 we had inadvertently stored a subset of unhashed passwords in our secure encrypted infrastructure. These passwords were stored for a maximum of 14 days. This issue has been fixed and, again, we have seen no evidence of improper access to or misuse of the affected passwords. We will continue with our security audits to ensure this is an isolated incident.

Here's some examples of today's email alerts sent to G Suite admins:

Passwords are hashed so that if someone breaks into, say, Google's servers, they can't usefully make off with people's login credentials: the passwords will be scrambled in such a way the miscreant can't figure out the originals and can't use them to log into other websites where the passwords are reused. If a hacker gets into Google's infrastructure, passwords hashed or not hashed, it's potentially game over anyway: it's possible they could access other sensitive info.

The passwords weren't hashed in this G Suite case, reminding us of Facebook, but were apparently stored encrypted at rest, meaning a hacker should not, in the best case scenario, be able to access them. However, it may be possible that a rogue staffer, or a skilled intruder, could still access the logged passwords as plaintext – they have to be decrypted at some stage by the ad giant's backend software to be used. This is why it's highly preferable to hash passwords, and then store them encrypted at rest, to be totally sure.

In other words, it's sloppy, dangerous, and embarrassing, though keep it all in perspective: to exploit this security blunder, an attacker would have to break into Google’s key networks, and obtain and exfiltrate the decrypted data, or subvert a staffer with enough seniority to decrypt the passwords, and in both cases, users would be severely screwed anyway. Hashing would protect the account passwords from snooping, sure, but, er, there would be rather bigger problems to solve: bad people on the network with all sorts of servers and data to potentially leaf through... until they trip one of many intrusion detection systems, of course.

From Wednesday, Google will begin changing passwords for affected accounts that have not already done so. So if you see things have changed, don’t panic. Just keep calm and carry on. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading
  • UK competition watchdog seeks to make mobile browsers, cloud gaming and payments more competitive
    Investigation could help end WebKit monoculture on iOS devices

    The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on Friday said it intends to launch an investigation of Apple's and Google's market power with respect to mobile browsers and cloud gaming, and to take enforcement action against Google for its app store payment practices.

    "When it comes to how people use mobile phones, Apple and Google hold all the cards," said Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a statement. "As good as many of their services and products are, their strong grip on mobile ecosystems allows them to shut out competitors, holding back the British tech sector and limiting choice."

    The decision to open a formal investigation follows the CMA's year-long study of the mobile ecosystem. The competition watchdog's findings have been published in a report that concludes Apple and Google have a duopoly that limits competition.

    Continue reading
  • End of the road for biz living off free G Suite legacy edition
    Firms accustomed to freebies miffed that web giant's largess doesn't last

    After offering free G Suite apps for more than a decade, Google next week plans to discontinue its legacy service – which hasn't been offered to new customers since 2012 – and force business users to transition to a paid subscription for the service's successor, Google Workspace.

    "For businesses, the G Suite legacy free edition will no longer be available after June 27, 2022," Google explains in its support document. "Your account will be automatically transitioned to a paid Google Workspace subscription where we continue to deliver new capabilities to help businesses transform the way they work."

    Small business owners who have relied on the G Suite legacy free edition aren't thrilled that they will have to pay for Workspace or migrate to a rival like Microsoft, which happens to be actively encouraging defectors. As noted by The New York Times on Monday, the approaching deadline has elicited complaints from small firms that bet on Google's cloud productivity apps in the 2006-2012 period and have enjoyed the lack of billing since then.

    Continue reading
  • Google offers $118m to settle gender discrimination lawsuit
    Don't even think about putting LaMDA on the compensation committee

    Google has promised to cough up $118 million to settle a years-long gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit that alleged the internet giant unfairly pays men more than women.

    The case, launched in 2017, was led by three women, Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, who filed a complaint alleging the search giant hires women in lower-paying positions compared to men despite them having the same qualifications. Female staff are also less likely to get promoted, it was claimed.

    Gender discrimination also exists within the same job tier, too, the complaint stated. Google was accused of paying women less than their male counterparts despite them doing the same work. The lawsuit was later upgraded to a class-action status when a fourth woman, Heidi Lamar, joined as a plaintiff. The class is said to cover more than 15,000 people.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022