| > Attackers are using hacked IoT devices to do these attacks. These devices have roughly the same computing power as a mid level smartphone. False for a very large variety of low-power IoT devices using chips like the ESP32, which are multiple decimal orders of magnitude slower than a modern computer (or high-end smartphone) and will absolutely take far longer to compute a Hashcash challenge than one of those devices. Your smart light bulb is absolutely not hosting a Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 to change its colors. Additionally, adding this compute+power load causes the presence of malware to become far more visible on these devices, which increases risk of discovery, which is a significant upside. Finally, because there's now a significant computational cost to performing a login attempt, the value of individual devices are further decreased to the attacker, which reduces their likelihood of compromising these devices, and for using them for these kinds of attacks against services that use this measure. So, yes, Hashcash is absolutely an adequate solution, and yes, there is absolutely a cost to the attacker. |
Hashcat was proposed over 20 years ago. You really think out of all the tens of thousands of security engineers working on this problem, nobody has ever considered it? Get a grip.
I hate how this website incentivizes people to try to make posts that sound smart instead of posting stuff they're actually knowledgeable about.