Obligatory https://neal.fun/password-game/
Ah I was just copying the URL to post the same thing. It’s such a fun game to go through, although I gave up pretty quickly
Tried it again, made it to the chess step
One of my coworkers got super into it and got into the high 20s I made an off-hand comment about wondering what it does for rule 34 and he responded “gasp I must know!” Then a couple days later messages me a screenshot on teams. Spoiler: it goes “ehhh let’s just skip this rule”
Use lichess.org’s board editor
You’re telling me I didn’t need to use my brain?
You’re on programmer humor, we don’t do “Brain” here.
Best practice in 2023 is a simple, sufficiently long but memorable passphrase. Excessive requirements mean users just create weak passwords with patterns.
[Capital letter]basic word(number){special character}Enforcing password changes doesnt help either. It just creates further patterns. The vast majority of compromised credentials are used immediately or within a short time frame anyway. Changing the password 2 months later isnt going to help and passwords like July2023!, which are common, are weak to begin with.
A non expiring, long, easily remembered passphase like
forgetting-spaghetti-toad-box
Is much more secure than a short password with enforced complexity requirements.Drop “memorable”. 99.9% of your passwords should be managed by your password manager and don’t need to be memorized. On one or two passwords that you actually need to type (like your computer login) need to be memorable.
Infuriating fact: if a service has maximum password length limits (lower than 1000 characters), they’re reversibly storing your password and if they’re that lazy it’s probably plain text
I share your frustration, especially when the maximum password length limit is outrageously low, but they do serve a purpose.
They may just base their limit on one or a few block sizes of the hash function.
That sounds incredibly unlikely. I would be good money that 99% of password length limits are not based on concrete limits. Things like “100 should be enough 🤷” must be way more common.
I doubt 1% of programmers are away of their hashes block size. It is also probably irrelevant since after the first round everything is fixed size anyways.
reversibly?
Yeah, you actually better not save the users passwords in plain text or in an encrypted way it could be decrypted. You rather save a (salted) hashed string of the password. When a user logs in you compare the hashed value of the password the user typed in against the hashed value in your database.
What is hashed? Think of it like a crossfoot of a number:
Let’s say you have a number 69: It’s crossfoot is (6+9) 15. But if someone steals this crossfoot they can’t know the original number it’s coming from. It could be 78 or 87.
Dumb question: isn’t it irrelevant for the malicous party if it’s 78 or 87 per your example, because the login only checks the hash anyway? Won’t both numbers succesfully login?
Additional to what others have said: The “salted” part is very relevant for storing.
There aren’t soooo many different hashing algorithms people use. So, let’s simplify the hashing again with the crossfoot example.
Let’s say, 60% of websites use this one algorithm (crossfoot) for storing your password, and someone steals the password “hashes” (and the login / email). I could ran a program that creates me a list of all possible crossfoots for all numbers for 1 to 100000.
This would give me an easy lookup table for finding the “real” number behind those hashes. (Those tables exists. Look up “rainbow tables”)
Buuuut what if I use a little bit of salt (and pepper pepper pepper) before doing my hashing / crossfooting?
Let’s use the pw “69” again and use a salt with a random number “420” and add them all together:
6 + 9 + 420 = 435
This hash wouldn’t be in my previous mentioned lookup table. Use different salts for every user and at least the lookup problem isn’t such a big problem anymore.
This was super helpful 🙏🏼 sent me down a whole other rabbit hole of learning
In the example yes.
In the real world, finding an input that produces the right hash output isn’t easy. And because a lot of users reuse passwords (don’t do it, but people do), a list of emails and passwords gives you an incredibly lazy and easy to do way to compromise accounts on other sites.
Reminds me of a funny moment in my IT internship, ahead of an audit one of the sysadmins came over and was saying “yeah so I pulled all of the department password hashes to check for weak/compromised accounts and noticed one person has the same sysadmin and user password hash” and my boss went “wait everyone doesn’t do that?” And after realizing they outed themselves turned bright red and changed their admin password
It’s actually a really good question. What you’re explaining is called a collision, by creating the same hash with different numbers you can succesfully login.
This why some standard hashing function become deprecated and are replaced when someone finds a collision. MD5, which was used a lot to hash passwords or files, is considered insecure because of all the collisions people could find.
i was more wondering why a length limit implies anything about how they’re storing the password. once they receive the password they’re free to hash it any which way they want
random memory—yahoo back in the day used to hash the password in the browser before sending it to the server, but TLS made that unnecessary i guess
Nope. No point in storing > 256 or even 128 chars for a password anyway. Useless storage wasted. Also it doesn’t really mean they store the password badly in the server.
Ignoring that they must be hashed to be acceptable and that it’s not possible for 1000 characters of text to add up to a waste of storage worth mentioning in pretty much any environment, it’s literally impossible for a 128 character password limit to be beneficial in any way.
A limit below that demonstrably lowers security by a huge margin.
