3 ms·

> I don't want to indicate which of the fields is an issue. Why not?

by saagarjha 1y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
Narrows down the possibilities, for a hacker by 50%.
- saagarjha 1y ago
  Ideally you have enough entropy that you can spend a factor of two on making your software more pleasant to use
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    That’s why I use Sign up with Apple. Fair bit of work. The nature of the target demographic demands that I don’t cut any corners, with security. But I’m also a big proponent of usability, so I would agree, for some applications.
- sippeangelo 1y ago
  The answer should be that it's a privacy leak! Do you allow random actors to brute force your login?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    It's not Fort Knox, mainly because I refuse to take much information from users, so even if baddies get in, they won't get much they can use. Admins can't log into the frontend (as admins), so hackers can't deduce power user logins from this, or escalate privileges. That's kind of blasphemy, with the HN crowd, I know, but we aren't interested in selling anything. It's a pure service. I won't limit retries, because locking users is about as bad as you can get, with userabusability. I just make sure that the fox ain't worth the chase, and make the chase just a bit more difficult, so hackers will waste their time on low-hanging fruit (that tastes pretty bad).
    - pixl97 1y ago
      Depending on what jurisdiction you're in, it still could be a legal risk due to PII leaking.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
        That’s why we drastically limit collection of PII. It really seems to be unusual, for folks to limit data collection. I’m always surprised, when folks seem surprised at how little we collect (and we don't actually "collect" the data, as it never leaves the server, and we don't really do anything with the bit we have. It's just enough to give the user a unique ID, and allow other users to anonymously contact them). It does make administration and forensics a bit more challenging, but that’s our problem; not the user’s.

> I don't want to indicate which of the fields is an issue. Why not?

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

Narrows down the possibilities, for a hacker by 50%.

saagarjha 1y ago
Ideally you have enough entropy that you can spend a factor of two on making your software more pleasant to use
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  That’s why I use Sign up with Apple. Fair bit of work. The nature of the target demographic demands that I don’t cut any corners, with security. But I’m also a big proponent of usability, so I would agree, for some applications.
sippeangelo 1y ago
The answer should be that it's a privacy leak! Do you allow random actors to brute force your login?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  It's not Fort Knox, mainly because I refuse to take much information from users, so even if baddies get in, they won't get much they can use. Admins can't log into the frontend (as admins), so hackers can't deduce power user logins from this, or escalate privileges. That's kind of blasphemy, with the HN crowd, I know, but we aren't interested in selling anything. It's a pure service. I won't limit retries, because locking users is about as bad as you can get, with userabusability. I just make sure that the fox ain't worth the chase, and make the chase just a bit more difficult, so hackers will waste their time on low-hanging fruit (that tastes pretty bad).
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Depending on what jurisdiction you're in, it still could be a legal risk due to PII leaking.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      That’s why we drastically limit collection of PII. It really seems to be unusual, for folks to limit data collection. I’m always surprised, when folks seem surprised at how little we collect (and we don't actually "collect" the data, as it never leaves the server, and we don't really do anything with the bit we have. It's just enough to give the user a unique ID, and allow other users to anonymously contact them). It does make administration and forensics a bit more challenging, but that’s our problem; not the user’s.