Live data from Hacker News

Password Rules Are Bullshit

blog.codinghorror.com

61–70 of 283 posts

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#61
post #25

I agree with almost everything but the he loses me towards the end: > I had a bit of a sad when I realized that we were perfectly fine with users selecting a 10 character password that was literally "aaaaaaaaaa". In my opinion, the simplest way to do this is to ensure that there are at least (x) unique characters out of (y) total characters. Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about with your arbitrary passwor…

> if the user getting their password stolen is not a problem for you because it's not your responsibility to handle these issues (like a hacker news account for instance) then just let the user pick whatever they want and deal with the consequences. If they care enough about it they'll care enough to pick a decent password.

Surely that's a cop-out? If the user getting their data stolen is not a big deal for you, why bother securing any system at all?

The reason service providers set password rules is because there are many, many people who do not understand what a good password is, or the risks associated with losing them. There are people out there using the same password for everything, unaware that the compromise of one service can spell doom for their financial life.

Developers really need to start taking responsibility for their code. Setting password rules, while arbitrary, are about protecting users. This may upset those who are tech-savvy and know what they are doing, but that really weighs nothing compared to the benefits it brings to those who are not.

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#62
post #36

Why not get rid of passwords completely and just send a link to log in to the user's email address?

Particularly for sites where you're unlikely to return for months/years (government, utilities, charities, small ecommerce sites) this is a fantastic approach.

[deleted]

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#63
post #56
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also you can work around that by hashing the entire uses password (with say SHA-512) prior to inputting into bcrypt. I wonder why people are so eager to combine different hash algorithms, especially a strong with a weaker one. If this is isn't a well-established anti-pattern, it should become one.[1] Why? Because in some sense it combines the weaknesses of both algorithms. Assume your password hash is: h(p) = bcryp…

While the collisions themselves would increase it's not statistically significant to cause an issue in practice. Plus the idea here isn't to increase the strength of the overall construct. It's to ensure that all characters that the user entered have some contribution to the final product. What I'd consider a much worse issue is considering the following to be the same by silently truncating things: - some really lon…

> Plus the idea here isn't to increase the strength of the overall construct

I see. If that wasn't a design goal, this construction is sound.

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#64
Somebody got into my bank account and attempted to steal some money. Luckily, we were able to stop it quickly and the bank had the money back in our account the same day. It was pretty upsetting so I sent a letter to them with a lot of questions about their system and eventually somebody from the inside called me.

One of the questions I asked was why they limit password length. The (low) limit suggests that they were storing the password rather than a hash of it. They wouldn't confirm that was what they were doing, but their ultimate answer to me was stop worrying - you aren't responsible for fraud.

I also asked for a list of all the external IPs that had accessed my account and I couldn't get that for privacy reasons. I'm not sure whose privacy they were worried about, but I guess it wasn't mine. In the end, it was an incredibly unsatisfying exercise.

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#65
I was trying to sign up to an online gaming site recently, and my initial password was shown as being "strong" but was rejected — not enough "special" characters. It was 24 chars long and straight out of Keepass, but whatever.

I asked Keepass for another password; it included special characters, was 24 chars long and "very strong", according to the website. Rejected.

I then noticed that the message was telling me I could not have more than 16 characters, so I trimmed the password to something rated as "medium". Accepted.

So yes, password rules are bullshit.

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#66
I wonder it who designs those rules, in general, notices that when you require "at least one Uppercase" people will just press shift for the first letter, and when you require "one number" people will suffix or prefix the password with the number "1" [0]. And I don't know how that would increase security.

[0] for example: http://www.the-interweb.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/...

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#67
Not mentioned:

Password reuse across sites. Have some check as to whether the same password can be used for the same username / email across other sites. I discovered this one early; back in 2000 I was an admin for a student portal at uni created by Virgin. As an admin I could manage people's accounts; including reset their passwords. The field for me to change their password had their current password; it was hidden by asterisks so I couldn't see it... until I clicked view source on the site :/. So now I had everyone's passwords & their email addresses; my guess is I could have taken advantage of this for at least 80% of those accounts.

Password change frequency. Changing your password can be annoying; but there is some benefit (so long as you're not changing too often).

Password reset rules. If you click "forgot password", many sites still use the memorable question with questions which are often publicly available (e.g. to get someone's mother's maiden name, this information's on the public record, and can often be found through someone's social media too by looking through their contacts, then the contacts of those sharing their surname; as their mother's maiden name will match their uncle's surname, and most people with their surname will be friends with both their mother and their uncle). Emailing a reset link is great; but relies on email which isn't (and some people's mail's very unsecure; e.g. company mail can often be legitimately viewed by the company's IT team; and that's the non-hacky scenario).

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#68

I'm surprised that this article didn't mention the most important point about password rules: They force you to come up with a new password that you probably haven't used before and so you will probably forget it. There are websites that I don't use often where I literally have to reset the password (and go through all the i-forgot-my-password steps) every time I want to log in because they forced me to come up with…

For me it's gotten to where I just assume next time I need to log into the website, 6 months from now - car insurance for example - I simply expect to recover the password. No password really matters besides my email.

This is why passwordless designs are best and why I'm building new things without passwords.

I think the future will be passwordless with biometric as a added layer of safety.

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#69
post #57
post #25

I agree with almost everything but the he loses me towards the end: > I had a bit of a sad when I realized that we were perfectly fine with users selecting a 10 character password that was literally "aaaaaaaaaa". In my opinion, the simplest way to do this is to ensure that there are at least (x) unique characters out of (y) total characters. Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about with your arbitrary passwor…

> I mean, I can imagine that a clueless user might have the illusion of safety if they're using something like "1q2w3e4r5t" but if I use "aaaaaaaaa" as a password on a website I know full well what I'm doing. So why even bother? It's not an illusion, 1q2w3e4r5t is indeed better than aaaaaaaaa, even if it's just the numbers interleaved with qwerty (and probably easy to brute force generate up to it). > if I use "aaaaa…

> 1q2w3e4r5t

"COMMON PASSWORD: IN THE TOP 9635 MOST USED PASSWORDS

Your password is very commonly used. It would be cracked almost instantly[1]"

I do realise there's a difference between cracking a local system password vs a website password but always assume a site's database is going to be leaked at some point

[1] https://howsecureismypassword.net/ (Don't go putting real passwords in there..)

Re: Password Rules Are Bullshit

#70
post #57
post #25

I agree with almost everything but the he loses me towards the end: > I had a bit of a sad when I realized that we were perfectly fine with users selecting a 10 character password that was literally "aaaaaaaaaa". In my opinion, the simplest way to do this is to ensure that there are at least (x) unique characters out of (y) total characters. Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about with your arbitrary passwor…

> I mean, I can imagine that a clueless user might have the illusion of safety if they're using something like "1q2w3e4r5t" but if I use "aaaaaaaaa" as a password on a website I know full well what I'm doing. So why even bother? It's not an illusion, 1q2w3e4r5t is indeed better than aaaaaaaaa, even if it's just the numbers interleaved with qwerty (and probably easy to brute force generate up to it). > if I use "aaaaa…

Okay, I'm game: HHHnHHHHnHHHHHnnnnnnnnnHHnnnnnnHHHHH

It's a password that I postulate is more secure that the average and yet is only made of two different symbols and would've been rejected by the proposed "x amongst y" character policy.

It's a bit far fetched but not that much, you'll notice that the pattern is simply the first digits of pi, so it's fairly easy to remember. And the letters are "Hn", like hacker news.

That's my point, really. If you think you know better than the user how to pick a password, then just do it. Otherwise don't get in my way, you don't know how I generate my passwords.

Post reply on HN