Technology

59569 readers

3825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

549

NIST proposes barring some of the most nonsensical password rules (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Amicitas@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

179 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here is the text of the NIST sp800-63b Digital Identity Guidelines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 335 points 1 month ago (76 children)

Reworded rules for clarity:

Min required length must be 8 chars (obligatory), but it should be 15 chars (recommended).

Max length should allow at least 64 chars.

You should accept all ASCII plus space.

You should accept Unicode; if doing so, you must count each code as one char.

Don't demand composition rules (e.g. "u're password requires a comma! lol lmao haha" tier idiocy)

Don't bug users to change passwords periodically. Only do it if there's evidence of compromise.

Don't store password hints that others can guess.

Don't prompt the user to use knowledge-based authentication.

Don't truncate passwords for verification.

I was expecting idiotic rules screaming "bureaucratic muppets don't know what they're legislating on", but instead what I'm seeing is surprisingly sane and sensible.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 59 points 1 month ago (23 children)

I hate that anyone has to be told not to truncate passwords. Like even if you haven't had any training at all, you'd have to be advanced stupid to even come up with that idea in the first place.

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Microsoft used to do that. I made a password in the late 90's for a we service and I found out that it truncated my password when they made it after it warned my my password was too long when I tried to log in. It truncated at 16 characters.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The weirdest one I found was a site that would only check to see if what you entered started with the correct password. So if your password was hunter2 and you tried hunter246, it would let you in.

Which means not only were they storing the password, but they had to go out of their way to use the wrong kind of string comparison.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

USAA does this. I renentl learned that, when I updated my password a few years back to my personal standard number of characters, everything was good until someone mentioned this fuck-up in a thread. USAA only checks the first... 16? characters. I assume it just discards anything beyond that. Other users say that it warns and doesn't let you enter more than that during password creation, but it/my pw mgr sure didn't care, as I have a password several fold that limit. I took out a couple characters from my 'set' password, and it still logged in just fine. 16, just fine. 15, error.

Fucking wild.

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I used to work there. I reported this bug every quarter until a VP told me to stop…

[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 1 points 1 month ago

The LM password hash (predecessor to NTLM) was calculated in two blocks of 7 characters from that truncated 14 characters. Which meant the rainbow table for that is much smaller than necessary and if your password is not 14 characters, then technically part of the hash is much easier to brute force, because the other missing characters are just padded with null.

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (72 replies)