3 ms·
That introduces additional complexity, and the password is already protected by https. As others have pointed out, if you go for complexity, there are better s
by rocqua 7y ago
That introduces additional complexity, and the password is already protected by https.
As others have pointed out, if you go for complexity, there are better schemes. However, by avoiding the complexity you keep simpler client side code.
Especially because this is standard, whilst doing extra stuff would involve doing your own crypto code.
- SlayAe 7y agoThe only thing that you nées is a hash fonction. I think thé added complexity ils negligible on any modern System.
- rocqua 7y agoComplexity of the code base. The computation of hashes client side requires quite a bit of custom code. Sending a plain text password is build into the browser.
- cerberusss 7y agoSmall tip: looking at the spelling errrors, I bet you're on mobile, and using the standard Google or iOS keyboard set to French. I constantly have to switch between English and my native language as well. But I found out that with Swiftkey (by Microsoft), you don't need to manually switch between two languages; you just configure two language at once and the software does autocorrect for both.