4 ms·
Limiting character is wrong because the space is totally limited. Plenty of "important" websites do that and I go sigh. I use different password for different t
by yeukhon 9y ago
Limiting character is wrong because the space is totally limited. Plenty of "important" websites do that and I go sigh. I use different password for different types of services for that reason.
If we don't limit number of characters (but seriously I'd say on average password lengh would be 8-10; I go a lot beyond that). In practice forcing to have combinations of various character sets increase search space, but in practice I bet most users are likely to use @ for a, l for 1, or captialize either first initial, or first initial of every word.
Or worse, just append, preappend, or modify one or two characters because some other websites decided to have a more unique password policy, and users hate to reinvent a whole new password. Then imagine one website got hacked, the next is easy..
So essentially if we can gather sufficent data about a target, then the brute force search space is now hammered and reduced.
In any case, I am a big believer of no restriction, because of what I said above. The behavior of choosing password is not too random so we can predict and infer from whatever we know. Password and passphrase are the same shit because "ILoveTacoAndBurgersWhatever1984" is a legitmate password. Good luck guessing that because I am not a huge fan of Taco, and I bet you no machine brute force this in any reasonable time.
The whole password vs passphrase is a campaign to get rid of the sophicated password policy, so people came up with a new name.
In the end, I believe having a 2-auth and allowing users to freely choose whatever passwors they want is better than forcing them to choose whatever we think is best. Education is the key, both on social engineering and on choosing passwords. We as software technologists have the responsibility to make dangerous / "i am not sure if that's a good thing to do" warning more obvious.
Of course I am aware there are other alternative proposals to replace pwd but for now password is not going anywhere soon.
- IncRnd 9y agoLimiting the character length of a password is an indication that the password is getting stored.
- yeukhon 9y agoI am referring to limiting password to a small number. Of course no one should take in a password > 32 characters. bcrypt has limitation itself. A reasonable and practical limit is 32, so we can prevent DoS attack because encrypt/decrypt takes up a chunk of CPU resource. I'd be surprise anyone go beyond that (for a "passphrase").
- zokier 9y ago32 characters is very low limit. I checked and the average word length is about 7 chars. So 5 word passphrase would be 39 chars. And that is not very extreme example
- IncRnd 9y agoYou are giving bad advice. bcrypt's maximum password length is not 32 bytes. In fact the maximum has been debated due to discrepancies from the paper describing it and the first implementation, which actually accepted longer passwords due to how it handled words internally. In either case the max length is at least 20 characters more than you state. Your own words above: "because encrypt/decrypt takes up" is 32 bytes. By most measures a five word passphrase fitting into 32 bytes doesn't even contain 80 bits of entropy.