Live data from Hacker News

Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

tailscale.com

301–310 of 539 posts

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#301
Very confused about this point:

> Passwords, Face ID, Touch ID — things that supposedly nobody but you can replicate, but which don't prove you're physically near a given device

Password, sure. But the other 2 surely prove that you're both 1) the correct person and 2) near the physical device that scans your face/fingerprint. The article immediately follows that by saying that face/touch ID do both.

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Password similarity rule was not enforced ?

Doesn't enforcing this require storing the password in cleartext somewhere, which is a much more dangerous concept to begin with?

Similarly of new vs current password is simple enough by just requiring the current password as part of the password change call. Which is a good idea anyway so someone can't just walk up and change your password if you forget to lock things over lunch.

Similarly vs older passwords is what would be an issue.

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone not add the year & month of the last password change to the end of their password? E.g. PascalCasePassphraseGoesHere2025-06, then at the next required change in (for example) 6 months: PascalCasePassphraseGoesHere2026-01. It almost certainly fits the inane "letter, number, and special character" requirements they probably have, complies with "different from your last X passwords", and is easy to keep trac…

I’ve personally experienced the password change require that “more than X characters be different than the old password”

Um, that's a really bad sign...

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve personally experienced the password change require that “more than X characters be different than the old password”

Um, that's a really bad sign...

To elaborate for the uninitiated, that means they are storing it in plaintext somewhere.

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#306

Forced password rotation and expiry seems the bigger problem; given that it causes people to get locked out so often, (e.g. if pw expires when on holiday), — often then requiring travelling to IT, or at least a few hours trying to get IT on the phone to reset, or chasing up colleagues who aren't locked out to get in touch with IT. Many (most?) companies still do it, despite it now not being recommended by NIST: > Ver…

Bad habits are hard to kill.

Sometimes you just cant convince people that something is no longer recommended.

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#308
post #307
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To elaborate for the uninitiated, that means they are storing it in plaintext somewhere.

Is there any way to check that with non-plain-text password?

Actually it can be trivial as long as you can require the user to re-type the current password when entering a new password; check hash first, then check edit distance with the entered "current password" (and, of course, promptly throw it away once you know the edit distance.)

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#309
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve kind of become a fan of the sites that don’t even have passwords but just email you a “magic” link. If my account security is tied to my email why make me do extra song and dance if I’m gonna have to fish out an email for every login anyway?

I despise this. With username and password my password manager just fills it in and it is one click to click "login". With email magic link I need to enter my email (it seems to rarely auto-fill for some reason), then wait (often it takes 10s for the email to be sent for some reason), then if I was logging in on something that isn't my default browser I need to copy+paste the link (often just clicking the link author…

Nothing tempts me so strongly to give up and leave a site than needing to use a magic link to get in.

Sometimes it takes minutes. I have, on more than one occasion, given up on buying a product because of this. It's actually insane to me how much effort sites put into preventing users from using them.

I get it, most people are idiots with completely non-existent security hygiene, but man does it suck being punished because of just how low the common denominator is here.

Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure

#310
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Password rotation does nothing more than get you to use 1234abcd@ 1234abcd@1 1234abcd@2 1234abcd@3 I'm becoming pretty convinced that at least in the corporate space, we'd be way better off with a required 30 character minimum password, with the only rules being against gross repetition or sequences. (no a * 30 or abcd...yz1234567890 ). Teach people to use passphrases and work on absolutely minimizing the number of t…

"Your password is too similar to your previous password" Hmm, how would you know that.

Don't you generally have to enter the current password to change it to a new one?
Post reply on HN