Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:28:54 +0200
From: "e@...tmx.net" <e@...tmx.net>
To: passwords@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: GMOs And Passwords

On 08/24/2016 10:22 PM, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:18 PM, e@...tmx.net <mailto:e@...tmx.net>
> <e@...tmx.net <mailto:e@...tmx.net>>wrote:
>
>     [insult skipped]
>
>         But how we as service developers can automate checks for such
>         kind of
>         advices? Should we?
>
>
>     we should NOT!
>
>     (1) it is completely different area of responsibility.
>     do not mess with the users' free will.
>     expending of your "care" beyond the boundaries of your responsibility
>     always cases more trouble than good.
>
>     (2) an ideal password should FAIL all checks.
>     checks are LIMITATIONS.
>     a password that complies to a policy is worse than a password that
>     does not.
>
>
> ​On one side, I can see how "don't
> ​reject any values" could lead to more work for attackers.
>
> On the other, if they're certainly going to guess 123456 and password,
> maybe we shouldn't allow users to use those strings in the first place?

it is that almost all policies that reject 123456 also reject very 
sophisticated very personal and enormously strong passwords.

this rejection is uncontrollable you can not guarantee that your policy 
does not reject: "on the second day of waning moon my granma baked 
seventeen cup cakes with swastika frosting"

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ