• Aer@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    User error can still be mildly infuriating, I’m not removing this post. Thanks!

  • hth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Anytime you see a password length cap you know they are not following current security standards. If they aren’t following them for something so simple and visible, you’d better believe it’s a rat infested pile of hot garbage under the hood, as evidenced here.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At my job they just forced me to use a minimum 15-character password. Apparently my password got compromised, or at least that was someone’s speculation because apparently not everyone is required to have a 15-char password.

      My job is retail, and I type my password about 50 times a day in the open, while customers and coworkers and security cameras are watching me.

      I honestly don’t know how I’m expected to keep my password secure in these circumstances. We should have physical keys or biometrics for this. Passwords are only useful when you enter them in private.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah you should have a key card. Like not even from a security perspective but from an efficiency one. Tap a keycard somewhere that would be easily seen if an unauthorized person were to even touch or even swipe it if need be. I’m sick and tired of passwords at workplaces when they can be helped

    • crunchyoutside@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you saying that any site which does not allow a 27 yobibyte long password is not following current security standards?
      I think a 128 character cap is a very reasonable compromise between security and sanity.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In theory yes. But in practice the DB will almost always have some cap on the field length. They could just be exposing that all the way forward. Especially depending on their infastructure it could very well be that whatever modeling system they use is tightly integrated with their form generation too. So the dev (junior or otherwise) thought it would be a good idea to be explicit about the requirement

      That said, you are right that this is still wrong. They should use something with a large enough cap that it doesn’t matter and also remove the copy telling the use what that cap is

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right but that puts a limit on the hash algorithm’s input length. After a certain length you can’t guarantee a lack of collisions.

          Of course the probability stays low, but at a certain point it becomes possible.

          • __dev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is plainly false. Hash collisions aren’t more likely for longer passwords and there’s no guarantee there aren’t collisions for inputs smaller than the hash size. The way secure hashing algorithms avoid collisions is by making them astronomically unlikely and that doesn’t change for longer inputs.

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      you have to limit it somewhere or you’re opening yourself up for a DoS attack

      password hashing algorithms are literally designed to be resource intensive

        • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not true. Password hashing algorithms should be resource intensive enough to prevent brute force calculation from being a viable route. This is why bcrypt stores a salt, a hash, and the current number of rounds. That number of rounds should increase as CPUs get faster to prevent older hashes from existing in the wild which can be more effectively broken by newer CPUs.

          • confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was incorrect about the goal being minimal resources. I should have written that that goal was to have controlled resource usage. The salt does not increase the expense of the the hash function. Key stretching techniques like adding rounds increase the expense to reach the final hash output but does not increase the expense of the hash function. High password length allowances of several thousand characters should not lead to a denial of service attack but they don’t materially increase security after a certain length either.

  • Wolf Link 🐺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know it’s annoying that the password “doesn’t match”, but … a 128 character limit?! I’d like to see THAT fully utilized lol.

    (PS: the sentence above is exactly 128 characters, just for a comparison.)

    …and I bet once you want to change it you get the “your new password can not be the old password” error message just because.

    • Resolute3542@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean there is bitwarden, which literally can generate you strong random unique passwords for each site. Not really hard these days, I personally have unique one for every site but cap mine around 36 characters when generating passwords. Depends on the website tho.

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My favorite was when I changed my password and they allowed different restrictions on the change password screen than they did when logging in. I changed my password to a 24 character one but log in screen only allows for max 16. I think they were truncating somewhere but I could not figure it out. Also could not change it again as it said it was incorrect.

    • Vii@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      An acquaintance of mine has a 36 characters long passcode for his tablet that he manually puts in every time he wants to use it.

      And you can use password managers to make secure passwords without ever having to input them yourself.