8 ms·

Building a Password Cracker in 2024

85 points by notmine1337 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zdyn5 3y ago
Naive question: how is brute-force cracking still a thing in real-world systems? Aren’t there time-outs/bans for guessing wrong after like 3-5 guesses? How does one get the opportunity to try millions/billions/etc of times?
- Etheryte 3y ago
  Databases get dumped, well, not all the time, but fairly often. See haveibeenpwned for example, they post a new breach once a week, if not more often [0]. [0] https://feeds.feedburner.com/HaveIBeenPwnedLatestBreaches https://feeds.feedburner.com/HaveIBeenPwnedLatestBreaches
  - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
    HIBP even is basically tip of the iceberg in terms of how much data is floating around - Troy and his team only get the ones that are publicly leaked, or privately shared with them. They also have historically had a backlog of data to process - leaked databases can be a pain to parse and turn into something usable.
- kemotep 3y ago
  Well if not setup properly, it is possible to dump the Windows password hashes (and linux too). You take that list of hashes, and copy to your password cracking rig, where it can run for a few days to see how many password hashes you can find a match for. Then once you have identified a password hash match, you now know an account password. However, if things aren’t properly secured where an attacker can dump password hashes, they likely can utilize “pass the hash” style attacks as well where you don’t even need to know the password to be able to sign in as a user.
  - px43 3y ago
    Windows networks are notoriously bad about this. If you find yourself on a Windows network, either because you found an active ethernet jack in the lobby, or you get on the wifi, phishing, or you land on a citrix box or whatever, you can run a tool called Responder. Windows machines on a network are constantly scanning around, looking for new devices, and when they find them, they like to see if they can access them so they show up in network manager or whatever. They do this by trying to log in. Obviously logging in with a password would be insecure, so they try to log in with a hash. Responder pretends to be any sort of server that a Windows machine would try to log in to, so right when you run it, all the nearby machines hand over their hashes. Crack even one of those hashes, and now you can log in to Active Directory. This will let you get the full list of all users, permissions, groups, machines, and sessions, etc, and basically tell you exactly what you need to do to get anywhere you want (Bloodhound is the main tool people use for this). That AD account also lets you dump all the SPNs (service accounts) on the network, and because Windows is Windows, of course that gives you something like 20-30 password hashes, many of which are almost certainly Domain Admins on the network. Crack a Domain Admin account, and you can basically do whatever you want on the network, including doing a dcsync, which is normally used to back up a domain controller, but also dumps every account and NTLM hash straight into your lap. These hashes can be used with pass-the-hash to impersonate any account, or you can just crack them and basically have free access to the network for the rest of your life. The entire security of Windows networks is based on the premise that password crackers don't exist, which is why they have been fundamentally fucked for decades, and there's zero chance that any of this will ever get fixed.
- einarfd 3y ago
  If you manage to steal the file with the hashed passwords. Then none of that makes a difference.
- starmilk 3y ago
  What you generally feed into password cracking software is hashes of passwords that you've found by listening on the network, dumping from memory, or obtained by chaining another vulnerability. These are in a text file locally (offline), so there is no system that you are submitting hashes to for verification. It simply tries md5(your_password_guess) until it computes the same hash that you supplied. This is oversimplified and you can replace md5 with any hash alg that you need, but i hope it makes it clear that guesses don't happen against the auth server.
- coffeeri 3y ago
  You don't need to do this online in many cases. For instance, the hash of WPA-secured Wi-Fi networks can be captured during the handshake of other devices.
- Ellipsis753 3y ago
  This is for cracking password _hashes_. Most websites won't store a user's plain-text password but will only store the hash of it. Then a hack/exploit might later reveal the website's password hashes. This program helps you turn the hash back into the original password. Assuming you have a hash already, you own the hash, so it's not possible for anyone to impose a rate limit on how quickly you can attempt to break it.
- tetha 3y ago
  Offline vs online brute forcing, as I like to call it. As others have said, if you have the hashes, you can brute force them offline and there won't be any limits on how fast it can go besides your algorithms and compute resources. But even online, attackers can be pretty smart. For example, something we detected was an attacker rotating both through a bunch of accounts and a bunch of IP addresses. That way you never saw many incorrect login tries per account and IP in a timeframe. It's not millions/billions of tries, but it can get around naive limits per IP or per account and you need some SIEM tooling to detect that.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Modern KDF algorithms are designed to guard against offline attacks by massively increasing the cost per hash. Online or offline, brute forcing shouldn't be an issue nowadays. Saying "there's no limit besides your resources" is basically saying "there's no limit besides the very real and insurmountable limit there is".
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Guess how many systems are using KDF algorithms in practice?
      - stavros 3y ago
        The fact that they aren't implementing the solution doesn't mean that the solution doesn't exist or isn't effective, though. Plus, nowadays, most (all?) big frameworks have used KDFs by default for years.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        True. I don't think Windows or Linux do though, right?
        stavros 3y ago
        Linux uses bcrypt by default, AFAIK. Windows had NTLM last I looked, but I don't know what they have now.
- zdyn5 3y ago
  Thanks everyone for these informative answers!
alexchamberlain 3y ago
I found the comments regarding checking your power supply quite interesting - I guess in Europe with 220V as standard we don't really need to worry about it? (Assuming your plugs aren't on a lighting ring or something silly like that)
- perbu 3y ago
  Most outlets should let you draw 10A without issue, unless the electrical system is from the 70s or earlier. Fwiw; Europe did standardize on 230V back in 1992. 220V hasn't been used in a generation or so.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    While 230 V is now the nominal voltage everywhere, the previous 220 V has been intentionally included in the tolerance range of the voltage. There are many places where the power stations have not been updated for many years, so 220 V remains the actual voltage that can be measured on the outlet.
- oktoberpaard 3y ago
  In my EU country the typical power limit per circuit is 16 A * 230 V = 3680 W. I imagine that similar limits exist in other EU countries.
  - alexchamberlain 3y ago
    I think most individual sockets will be rated for 13A in the UK, but still a good amount of power
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      When more than 13A is required at a socket in the UK it will be the blue "Commando" type. Those are either 16 or 32A. I once had a blade server chassis delivered with a cable for this.
mvelbaum 3y ago
Hmm, I actually have an old password protected PDF (pass is prolly around ~10 chars, letters+digits) whose password I forgot. Are there legit services offering brute-force cracking? How long would it take, and how much it would it cost?
- mikequinlan 3y ago
  You may not need to crack the password. https://smallpdf.com/unlock-pdf https://smallpdf.com/unlock-pdf for example. Here is a PDF password cracker: https://www.lostmypass.com/file-types/pdf/ https://www.lostmypass.com/file-types/pdf/
  - mvelbaum 3y ago
    I tried the free tools already -- none seemed to work :(
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    I'm very wary downloading and running software on my computer in general, but I'd be even moreso with software from some unknown company providing a hacking tool. Definitely better to do this in a VM, but then your performance would take a hit
- Etheryte 3y ago
  This question, albeit for a longer password at 20 chars, was discussed at [0]. [0] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/61346/how-long-would-it-take-to-bruteforce-an-aes-128-protected-pdf-knowing-the-key-is https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/61346/how-long-...
- ycuser2 3y ago
  10 chars doesn't seem impossible to me (just a feeling). Don't about such services.
  - kingforaday 3y ago
    Keep in mind 10 character spaces should be represented by the selection pool size (A-Z = 26, a-z = 26, 0-9 = 10, so 26+26+10=62). You now can say 62^10 = total possible guesses available. Certainly you can start to make intelligent decisions on guessing properties and priorities to reduce your time. Also I didn't discuss entropy here in order to represent it more basically for the parent comment.
HackerThemAll 3y ago
tl;dr it's about building a rig and playing with it, and totally not about any novel password cracking methodologies for 2024 (which are IMO more important that hardware).
mrgaro 3y ago
I just read that Facebook is going to have 600 000 units of Nvidia H100 class GPUs by the end of year. What does that kind of processing power do for password cracking? Think what if NSA could order FB to run their infrastructure for one hour? How long passwords would need to be to still resist this?
- michelb 3y ago
  Given that some countries/nations now have access to 150-500+ superfast Nvidia cards, what kind of processing power (cpu/gpu) does the NSA have? Have they placed similar orders at Nvidia?
  - ianhawes 3y ago
    They build their own chips and have for some time now. My guess is they’re 10-15 years ahead of what’s publicly available.
    - px43 3y ago
      Their chips aren't any better, in fact they're probably quite a few generations behind what's available commercially due to various certification requirements etc. HOWEVER, last I checked, their budget for this sort of thing was 11 billion dollars a year, and that's where their advantage lies. Their chips are designed to be maximally power performant for the tasks they're doing, and they have a fuckton of them.
- nicce 3y ago
  If everyone starts using Argon2 with good parameters, not much!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- eql5 3y ago
  Insiders say that NSA had quantum computers for decades. And there is also Space Force. They can crack EVERYTHING. Of course I cannot prove this, but I trust my sources. Will not tell here.
asimpletune 3y ago
I'm curious if someone could comment on something. If a bunch of strings, let's say email address, are concatenated with a single, secret 128bit string, and then the resulting concatenation is hashed. Let's say sha256. Is something like this safe against the kind of rigs and attacks being built in 2024? You can assume the hashes are publicly downloadable, but the secret remains secret. EDIT: Thanks for the replies. The use case is that I made a commenting system that accepts submissions via email. However, it's only being used by my personal website right now, because I'm gathering feedback on it. You can see it at https://r3ply.com https://r3ply.com. Two things to protect are privacy of commentators, and to prevent tampering of the subject line. I had plans to use an HMAC, but right now I just naively sha256(message+pepper).
- gcr 3y ago
  The standard answer is “use bcrypt and don’t try to roll your own” Example when you say concatenation, do you mean hash(email + secret) or hash(secret + email)? The choice matters: off the top of my head, I know the former lets an attacker reuse state between hashing attempts if the emails are known because hashing occurs one block at a time, so knowing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the later had weaknesses too. Keep in mind most emails appear in public databases, so it’s not clear what you’re trying to protect.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    true. SHA-256 is vulnerable to length extension attacks because it uses Merkle–Damgård. one reason to consider SHA-3 which is a sponge. except not for password hashing because that requires a resource-intensive function like Argon2
- mratsim 3y ago
  Not sure what's your use-case and threat model, but HKDF is likely what you want, the concatenation is done in a way to prevent attacks: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5869 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5869
- px43 3y ago
  > the secret remains secret An attacker in a position to grab password hashes is also going to be in a position to grab that secret. No matter how you shuffle and try to hide it, there's not really a way around that.
BrandoElFollito 3y ago
Cybersecurity is a large set of security concerns and password strength is only one of them. This is mostly a solved problem and a minor consideration when store the passwords correctly on the backend (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Stor..., have reasonable password restrictions (16 characters, no complexity, changes once or twice a year "just in case"), ideally a basic checker when people set their passwords (against a leaked passwords db such as rockyou) and correct identity management (especially disabling an account when the user leaves). There is really nothing exciting in that part of cybersecurity and with the above in place you are safe and can move towards the real risks. Online password cracking does not matter in practical terms and for offline one you have other problems to urgently address. What are these risks depends on who you are but if you address aggressive, stubborn and coercive patching + development security (if you develop) + enthusiastic awareness you are ahead of 99% of the world already. Add to this some endpoint protection and monitoring of the events and, man, you are a company I can trust my HN rep.
- stouset 3y ago
  > changes once or twice a year Please stop cargo culting this.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    Could you please expand your thought?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - EE84M3i 3y ago
      NIST says: > “Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.” They also don't recommend having rules about like, a certain number of symbols, etc. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-FAQ/#q-b05 https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-FAQ/#q-b05
rompledorph 3y ago
I am curious why they did not go for 4090, as it seems to give more hashes/sec/dollar
mediumsmart 3y ago
I thought username is max 14 and password is min 22 as it should be.

85 points by notmine1337 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Naive question: how is brute-force cracking still a thing in real-world systems? Aren’t there time-outs/bans for guessing wrong after like 3-5 guesses? How does one get the opportunity to try millions/billions/etc of times?

Etheryte 3y ago
Databases get dumped, well, not all the time, but fairly often. See haveibeenpwned for example, they post a new breach once a week, if not more often [0]. [0] https://feeds.feedburner.com/HaveIBeenPwnedLatestBreaches https://feeds.feedburner.com/HaveIBeenPwnedLatestBreaches
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  HIBP even is basically tip of the iceberg in terms of how much data is floating around - Troy and his team only get the ones that are publicly leaked, or privately shared with them. They also have historically had a backlog of data to process - leaked databases can be a pain to parse and turn into something usable.
kemotep 3y ago
Well if not setup properly, it is possible to dump the Windows password hashes (and linux too). You take that list of hashes, and copy to your password cracking rig, where it can run for a few days to see how many password hashes you can find a match for. Then once you have identified a password hash match, you now know an account password. However, if things aren’t properly secured where an attacker can dump password hashes, they likely can utilize “pass the hash” style attacks as well where you don’t even need to know the password to be able to sign in as a user.
- px43 3y ago
  Windows networks are notoriously bad about this. If you find yourself on a Windows network, either because you found an active ethernet jack in the lobby, or you get on the wifi, phishing, or you land on a citrix box or whatever, you can run a tool called Responder. Windows machines on a network are constantly scanning around, looking for new devices, and when they find them, they like to see if they can access them so they show up in network manager or whatever. They do this by trying to log in. Obviously logging in with a password would be insecure, so they try to log in with a hash. Responder pretends to be any sort of server that a Windows machine would try to log in to, so right when you run it, all the nearby machines hand over their hashes. Crack even one of those hashes, and now you can log in to Active Directory. This will let you get the full list of all users, permissions, groups, machines, and sessions, etc, and basically tell you exactly what you need to do to get anywhere you want (Bloodhound is the main tool people use for this). That AD account also lets you dump all the SPNs (service accounts) on the network, and because Windows is Windows, of course that gives you something like 20-30 password hashes, many of which are almost certainly Domain Admins on the network. Crack a Domain Admin account, and you can basically do whatever you want on the network, including doing a dcsync, which is normally used to back up a domain controller, but also dumps every account and NTLM hash straight into your lap. These hashes can be used with pass-the-hash to impersonate any account, or you can just crack them and basically have free access to the network for the rest of your life. The entire security of Windows networks is based on the premise that password crackers don't exist, which is why they have been fundamentally fucked for decades, and there's zero chance that any of this will ever get fixed.
einarfd 3y ago
If you manage to steal the file with the hashed passwords. Then none of that makes a difference.
starmilk 3y ago
What you generally feed into password cracking software is hashes of passwords that you've found by listening on the network, dumping from memory, or obtained by chaining another vulnerability. These are in a text file locally (offline), so there is no system that you are submitting hashes to for verification. It simply tries md5(your_password_guess) until it computes the same hash that you supplied. This is oversimplified and you can replace md5 with any hash alg that you need, but i hope it makes it clear that guesses don't happen against the auth server.
coffeeri 3y ago
You don't need to do this online in many cases. For instance, the hash of WPA-secured Wi-Fi networks can be captured during the handshake of other devices.
Ellipsis753 3y ago
This is for cracking password _hashes_. Most websites won't store a user's plain-text password but will only store the hash of it. Then a hack/exploit might later reveal the website's password hashes. This program helps you turn the hash back into the original password. Assuming you have a hash already, you own the hash, so it's not possible for anyone to impose a rate limit on how quickly you can attempt to break it.
tetha 3y ago
Offline vs online brute forcing, as I like to call it. As others have said, if you have the hashes, you can brute force them offline and there won't be any limits on how fast it can go besides your algorithms and compute resources. But even online, attackers can be pretty smart. For example, something we detected was an attacker rotating both through a bunch of accounts and a bunch of IP addresses. That way you never saw many incorrect login tries per account and IP in a timeframe. It's not millions/billions of tries, but it can get around naive limits per IP or per account and you need some SIEM tooling to detect that.
- stavros 3y ago
  Modern KDF algorithms are designed to guard against offline attacks by massively increasing the cost per hash. Online or offline, brute forcing shouldn't be an issue nowadays. Saying "there's no limit besides your resources" is basically saying "there's no limit besides the very real and insurmountable limit there is".
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Guess how many systems are using KDF algorithms in practice?
    - stavros 3y ago
      The fact that they aren't implementing the solution doesn't mean that the solution doesn't exist or isn't effective, though. Plus, nowadays, most (all?) big frameworks have used KDFs by default for years.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        True. I don't think Windows or Linux do though, right?
        stavros 3y ago
        Linux uses bcrypt by default, AFAIK. Windows had NTLM last I looked, but I don't know what they have now.
zdyn5 3y ago
Thanks everyone for these informative answers!

alexchamberlain 3y ago

I found the comments regarding checking your power supply quite interesting - I guess in Europe with 220V as standard we don't really need to worry about it? (Assuming your plugs aren't on a lighting ring or something silly like that)

perbu 3y ago
Most outlets should let you draw 10A without issue, unless the electrical system is from the 70s or earlier. Fwiw; Europe did standardize on 230V back in 1992. 220V hasn't been used in a generation or so.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  While 230 V is now the nominal voltage everywhere, the previous 220 V has been intentionally included in the tolerance range of the voltage. There are many places where the power stations have not been updated for many years, so 220 V remains the actual voltage that can be measured on the outlet.
oktoberpaard 3y ago
In my EU country the typical power limit per circuit is 16 A * 230 V = 3680 W. I imagine that similar limits exist in other EU countries.
- alexchamberlain 3y ago
  I think most individual sockets will be rated for 13A in the UK, but still a good amount of power
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    When more than 13A is required at a socket in the UK it will be the blue "Commando" type. Those are either 16 or 32A. I once had a blade server chassis delivered with a cable for this.

mvelbaum 3y ago

Hmm, I actually have an old password protected PDF (pass is prolly around ~10 chars, letters+digits) whose password I forgot. Are there legit services offering brute-force cracking? How long would it take, and how much it would it cost?

mikequinlan 3y ago
You may not need to crack the password. https://smallpdf.com/unlock-pdf https://smallpdf.com/unlock-pdf for example. Here is a PDF password cracker: https://www.lostmypass.com/file-types/pdf/ https://www.lostmypass.com/file-types/pdf/
- mvelbaum 3y ago
  I tried the free tools already -- none seemed to work :(
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  I'm very wary downloading and running software on my computer in general, but I'd be even moreso with software from some unknown company providing a hacking tool. Definitely better to do this in a VM, but then your performance would take a hit
Etheryte 3y ago
This question, albeit for a longer password at 20 chars, was discussed at [0]. [0] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/61346/how-long-would-it-take-to-bruteforce-an-aes-128-protected-pdf-knowing-the-key-is https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/61346/how-long-...
ycuser2 3y ago
10 chars doesn't seem impossible to me (just a feeling). Don't about such services.
- kingforaday 3y ago
  Keep in mind 10 character spaces should be represented by the selection pool size (A-Z = 26, a-z = 26, 0-9 = 10, so 26+26+10=62). You now can say 62^10 = total possible guesses available. Certainly you can start to make intelligent decisions on guessing properties and priorities to reduce your time. Also I didn't discuss entropy here in order to represent it more basically for the parent comment.

HackerThemAll 3y ago

tl;dr it's about building a rig and playing with it, and totally not about any novel password cracking methodologies for 2024 (which are IMO more important that hardware).

mrgaro 3y ago

I just read that Facebook is going to have 600 000 units of Nvidia H100 class GPUs by the end of year. What does that kind of processing power do for password cracking? Think what if NSA could order FB to run their infrastructure for one hour? How long passwords would need to be to still resist this?

michelb 3y ago
Given that some countries/nations now have access to 150-500+ superfast Nvidia cards, what kind of processing power (cpu/gpu) does the NSA have? Have they placed similar orders at Nvidia?
- ianhawes 3y ago
  They build their own chips and have for some time now. My guess is they’re 10-15 years ahead of what’s publicly available.
  - px43 3y ago
    Their chips aren't any better, in fact they're probably quite a few generations behind what's available commercially due to various certification requirements etc. HOWEVER, last I checked, their budget for this sort of thing was 11 billion dollars a year, and that's where their advantage lies. Their chips are designed to be maximally power performant for the tasks they're doing, and they have a fuckton of them.
nicce 3y ago
If everyone starts using Argon2 with good parameters, not much!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
eql5 3y ago
Insiders say that NSA had quantum computers for decades. And there is also Space Force. They can crack EVERYTHING. Of course I cannot prove this, but I trust my sources. Will not tell here.

asimpletune 3y ago

I'm curious if someone could comment on something. If a bunch of strings, let's say email address, are concatenated with a single, secret 128bit string, and then the resulting concatenation is hashed. Let's say sha256. Is something like this safe against the kind of rigs and attacks being built in 2024? You can assume the hashes are publicly downloadable, but the secret remains secret. EDIT: Thanks for the replies. The use case is that I made a commenting system that accepts submissions via email. However, it's only being used by my personal website right now, because I'm gathering feedback on it. You can see it at https://r3ply.com https://r3ply.com. Two things to protect are privacy of commentators, and to prevent tampering of the subject line. I had plans to use an HMAC, but right now I just naively sha256(message+pepper).

gcr 3y ago
The standard answer is “use bcrypt and don’t try to roll your own” Example when you say concatenation, do you mean hash(email + secret) or hash(secret + email)? The choice matters: off the top of my head, I know the former lets an attacker reuse state between hashing attempts if the emails are known because hashing occurs one block at a time, so knowing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the later had weaknesses too. Keep in mind most emails appear in public databases, so it’s not clear what you’re trying to protect.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  true. SHA-256 is vulnerable to length extension attacks because it uses Merkle–Damgård. one reason to consider SHA-3 which is a sponge. except not for password hashing because that requires a resource-intensive function like Argon2
mratsim 3y ago
Not sure what's your use-case and threat model, but HKDF is likely what you want, the concatenation is done in a way to prevent attacks: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5869 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5869
px43 3y ago
> the secret remains secret An attacker in a position to grab password hashes is also going to be in a position to grab that secret. No matter how you shuffle and try to hide it, there's not really a way around that.

BrandoElFollito 3y ago

Cybersecurity is a large set of security concerns and password strength is only one of them. This is mostly a solved problem and a minor consideration when store the passwords correctly on the backend (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Stor..., have reasonable password restrictions (16 characters, no complexity, changes once or twice a year "just in case"), ideally a basic checker when people set their passwords (against a leaked passwords db such as rockyou) and correct identity management (especially disabling an account when the user leaves). There is really nothing exciting in that part of cybersecurity and with the above in place you are safe and can move towards the real risks. Online password cracking does not matter in practical terms and for offline one you have other problems to urgently address. What are these risks depends on who you are but if you address aggressive, stubborn and coercive patching + development security (if you develop) + enthusiastic awareness you are ahead of 99% of the world already. Add to this some endpoint protection and monitoring of the events and, man, you are a company I can trust my HN rep.

stouset 3y ago
> changes once or twice a year Please stop cargo culting this.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  Could you please expand your thought?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - EE84M3i 3y ago
    NIST says: > “Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.” They also don't recommend having rules about like, a certain number of symbols, etc. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-FAQ/#q-b05 https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-FAQ/#q-b05

rompledorph 3y ago

I am curious why they did not go for 4090, as it seems to give more hashes/sec/dollar

mediumsmart 3y ago

I thought username is max 14 and password is min 22 as it should be.