Deloitte: Use a Longer Password In 2013. Seriously. 538
a user writes "Deloitte predicts that 8-character passwords will become insecure in 2013. Humans have trouble remembering passwords with more than seven characters, and it is difficult to enter long, complex passwords into mobile devices. Users have not adapted to increased computing power available to crackers, and continue to use bad practices such as using common and short passwords, and re-using passwords across multiple websites. A recent study showed that using the 10000 most common passwords would have cracked >98% of 6 million user accounts. All of these problems have the potential for a huge security hazard. Password vaults are likely to become more widely used out of necessity. Multifactor authentication strategies, such as phone texts, iris scans, and dongles are also likely to become more widespread, especially by banks."
I Got It! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
awful password, only 4 symbols long
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Funny)
Easy peasy, I'll buy some time by making it 12 characters long: "111111111111".
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Funny)
Use a 2 for extra security. Computers can only find ones and zeros.
Re:I Got It! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Interesting)
4 symbols chosen randomly from a dictionary of ~200,000 by a computer not by you because you won't choose words randomly.
that makes it a 1 in 200000^4 to guess... or 1.6 x 10^21
compare that to an 8 character password also randomly generated. Passwords which are drawn from a set of around 90 symbols. (50 letters including upper and lower case, 10 digits, and ~30 symbols)
that's 90^8 or a measly 4.3 x10^15
a 4 word randomly chosen password from a dictionary is by far the better password, and much easier to remember too.
An 11 character password of completely random gibberish is about equivalent, to 4 random dictionary words. Good luck remembering somthing like `oN{/QM9PKb
which is no better than:
scald obsolescent period postpone
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
Password too long, please enter 8-12 characters.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to stop trying to remember multiple passwords entirely. Most browsers already remember passwords for you, with only a single master one needing to be committed to memory. The problem is they tend not to share the information between PCs and other devices.
An NFC enabled phone would be ideal. Store passwords on the phone, and when they need to be typed in beam them to whatever PC or device you are using via NFC. That way there is no need to trust the device receiving the password to protect your passw
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
An NFC enabled phone would be ideal. Store passwords on the phone.
Meanwhile police around the country are facing an epidemic of cell phone thefts.
everything is stored in one place that you always have access to.
Well, you have access to it unless it was stolen.
Or you dropped and it now its broken. ...
Or the battery is dead.
Or
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Interesting)
When I use pass-phrases, I make sure to include some capital letters, numbers, and symbols. This makes it almost impossible to brute force. So for example, 2Correcthorse4batteryStapple! would be a much more secure password, that really isn't any more difficult to remember. It's only using 7 symbols, which makes it fairly easy to remember. Once you type it enough, muscle memory will allow you to enter it without too much issue.
You could make it even more complex by using slang words, words from other languages, proper nouns, or other such words.
Re:I Got It! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your definition of "common words" is off by about an order of magnitude from reality, though. A typical person only uses about 10,000–25,000 words on a regular basis, depending on their level of education.
Even assuming the upper end of that, nearly all people would typically choose from about 3 * 10^17 possibilities, which at 350 billion attempts per second, would take only around ten days to crack. On the lower end, a sizable percentage of people would choose from about 1 * 10^16, which would take about eight hours to crack.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Funny)
And then you have a password that you won't readily remember, because you haven't seen the word "turgid" since the SAT.
Re: (Score:3)
You may have a problem with true random number generation if you let a computer pick for you.
You could try diceware instead -- it's pretty unlikely you'll end up with dice that have some kind of vulnerability built into them that will compromise your password picks. Plus it costs a tiny fraction of a true random number generation card.
http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html [std.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You mean "o31pe41na59lsoso26onagain54" is easy to find? You on crack or something? Protip: passphrases can be sprinkled with "line noise". Someone may use prime number sequence to space line noise, and digits of pi for line noise proper. Someone else may use, well, something else. You see where it's going. Good luck with figuring it out.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it goes like this. The world moves ahead. We're arriving at a society where people who don't dig technology at the basic level become third class citizens. Demonstrably, some logical thinking and memorization skills that go beyond the rudimentary are becoming a thrive-or-perish kind of a thing. Technology has started applying selection pressure, and I'm only happy that it's becoming so. There is a point at which you just can't help people who don't grok some things. They have to die out, and only ho
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Naive question, does anyone still brute force attack passwords? Are there websites out there that will allow you to try more than, say ten times before locking your account? If you're talking about the difference between 10 million different passwords and 4 billion, but facebook will lock down your account after 20 tries, there's not really a significant difference between the two. It seems like my accounts are always being locked down due to trying the wrong password from trying to "brute force" using every password I remember.
I've often wondered the same thing, and for the same reasons. I'm thinking brute force techniques would only be good against something like encrypted data that the attacker already has but needs the key in order to decrypt. Passwords are out of hand, and it seems to me like password managers are a bad idea from a security perspective. Things like iris recognition sound like a great idea, except the world can't even seem to get simple biometric readers like those on my kids' laptops to work reliably.
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is yes but its not the guy you think doing it. We still live in a largely single factor authentication world. Since you used facebook as an example I will too, but hopefully you can see how and why similar issues could come up in other organizations.
You correct in that there are very few online brute force attacks, because as you say effective controls exist timeout intervals, lock outs etc on most systems. Somewhere there this is a file or table with password hashes, ideally salted. This is vulnerable to brute force because you don't use the 'system' to try and log in you build your own hash generator that works through a word list generating hashes and seeing if any match. The size of a good word list, say the Oxford dictionary, with each word also spelled with some typical numeric substitutions and followed by various arrangements of !, 4theWin! etc is pretty large. When you then multiply that out by the number of possible salt values you end up with a word + set of hashes that is many TB in size. Its to large to search efficiently with out special purpose built systems. This is known as a rainbow table; it used be popular but CPUs and GPUs have gotten so much faster they make sense in fewer cases.
Because searching the rainbow table takes so long and salts are now known to you its actually faster to generate the [list of salts] * [word list entries] on the fly and see if you match any of the password hashes. If you do match one you know know the password. This is the sort of attack people mean when they say brute force password attack now most of time.
So how would an attacker get the password file? Well in many cases it would be an inside job. Let assume facebook has a policy that employees are not allowed to bypass the privacy controls and access the pages of celebrities, politicians, etc. Admins can do it because its sometime a requirement of their job but the back end systems always audit this sort of activity. So someone abusing the master key will be punished. Now lets also suppose access to the master password file is also protected fairly well. Attempts to read it by non-authorized process etc are logged. Ah but what about if someone replaces a raid disk in a authentication server that was not really bad? Is it possible it could be read off a backup tape by an operator who knows the key etc. There are probably holes, insiders might use; even in mostly secure environments.
So now mister admin that really wants to know who K.Stu is banging this week can take the password file home with him and brute force it. Once he has her password, he can log in as her. The password not been rest, which might have been logged, or noticed by the user and reported etc, so chances are he can do whatever he wants with very little chance of detection and no audit trail that will point back to him, remember he has stolen the users identity. So yes he might have gotten the data anyway through other means but this way he can do it with everyone being unaware.
This is one of the hole that strong passwords and semi frequent rotation are seeking to close. The hope is if it takes enough weeks to brute force, you will have changed it by the time its been cracked.
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
No. But it makes good headlines and sells whatever "security expert of the day" happens to be peddling.
On most of the web, a good secure 8 random character password that you don't reuse on other sites is about a few orders of magnitude too secure for hackers to even bother thinking about cracking. The "account hacks" are usually about people managing to steal a list of user names and passwords from some shitty forum that has old version of BBS software, and then trying those combinations of user names and passwords on other sites. Pretty much all brute force methods require direct access to database that is badly encrypted (perhaps behind a weak password that they intend to crack?).
Other then these scenarios, vast majority of "your password is too short and as a result not secure" is scaremongering bullshit.
Full disclosure: I have several battle.net accounts, a LoL account and countless other similar game accounts that are very much wanted in hack and sell world, all under the same email. I get absolutely hammered by "your account is being closed for hacking, click here to fix" phishing emails and other similar bullshit on that email address. My WoW account was very valuable for a couple of years (very good server, easily within top 0.1% of people in terms of wealth and in top 1% in terms of rare items and progression, legendary and so on). Didn't get hacked a single time. Several guildies and countless people I know had their accounts hacked during this time, some more then once. I used, and still use a short UNIQUE password for each account. Not a single account breach.
Why? Because no one sane brute forces remote passwords when doing actual hacking for profit. It's bloody stupid to even bother trying. There are far more profitable and easier methods, that actually work.
Re:I Got It! (Score:4, Informative)
If you had people generate a four word pass phrase, it's quite likely that most of them would contain only words from a relatively small subset of the English language.
Which is why the computer would generate the phrase.
2Correcthorse4batteryStapple!
Varying capitalization, and optionally separating the 4 words with 3 character symbols adds: 2*2*2*2*90*90*90*5*4*3 possible permutations: 6.9e8
Now that's not bad, and it definitely is more secure than the plain 4 words. BUT:
Assuming 200,000 words in the dictionary. Simply adding 3 more words to the end gives you 8e15 additional permutations.
8e15 is a LOT bigger than 6.9e8
And now we are at 7 symbols either way.
Remembering 3 more words is both easier and ridiculously more secure too.
Peppering a passphrase with difficult to remember symbols is missing the point. If you want more security, just add another random word or two. Either method increases its brute force complexity, but perhaps counterintuitively, adding a few words is far more secure than mangling the pass phrase with a few symbols.
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless your computer is hacked and the master database stolen, it's a pretty decent way to use unique passwords.
Re: (Score:3)
"2Correcthorse4batteryStapple! would be a much more secure password, that really isn't any more difficult to remember."
For most people, this is false. Among the things I teach are remedial community college arithmetic & algebra classes, as taken by about half the nation's college students, and frankly, they can't remember dick. For example: About 1/2 of our arithmetic students can never remember the one-digit multiplication table; about 1/2 of our algebra students can never remember operations on negati
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
A better question would be, what system would allow 1000 password guesses per second to be authenticated? Most systems lock you out after 3 to 5 unsuccessful attempts. And I would hope that smart developers would put a time delay between how fast a user can reattempt to authenticate. So a computer sending authentication attempts in less than one second would be immediately blacklisted as a automated attack. Inserting a second or two delay between attempts would guarantee that. Assuming a computer could brute force a password by trying all possible strings, what system could that possibly be effective against? I can see that it could be useful against an encrypted file but an online banking site or other eCommerce site sounds impractical. anyone care to elaborate?
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Informative)
A better question would be, what system would allow 1000 password guesses per second to be authenticated?
Irrelevant, as the cracking will happen offline after the bad guys have stolen your PW DB by exploiting other weaknesses in your system
Re:I Got It! (Score:4)
A better question would be, what system would allow 1000 password guesses per second to be authenticated?
Irrelevant, as the cracking will happen offline after the bad guys have stolen your PW DB by exploiting other weaknesses in your system
Which makes things even worse, since to protect your account, you're depending online service "X" to protect and secure their tables of passwords and account names with the best practices available (if convenient). And to make things even worse than that, those guys are counting on the general public to create more entropic and cryptographically secure passwords to secure their authentication data!
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The fastest typist can type 100 - 150 WPM, so lets use that metric for designing systems requiring "human" input, like passwords. Artificially limiting brute force attacks.
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I Got It! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd just double the time it takes for each try.
First bad password: 1 second to retry.
Second bad password: 2 seconds to retry.
Third bad password: 4 seconds to retry.
Fourth bad password: 8 seconds to retry.
Fifth bad password: 16 seconds to retry.
You get the idea. It'll end brute-force and only mildly inconvenience clueless users with fat fingers.
Re:I Got It! (Score:5, Insightful)
Great thinking, there.
Seth
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bet that 99% of all login systems on the internet not having any realistic brute force blocks.
I believe that is a safe bet.
Yes more security conscious places such as banks *should* have limits.
That doesn't affect most of the internet however.
Re: (Score:2)
My preference is to mix a few languages and technical terms.
nekozuki catbus ibuprofen shutzpa
Even if you know how I generate these passphrases the number of combinations is staggering.
Since the majority of language can use latin script you easily have a million or more possibilities
for each word, giving more than 10^24 potential combinations, and that does not take into consideration
that I am more than happy to include things like "catbus", which is not a real english word.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Well mine's Korect hors battrey stappl [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
d0G...................
That'll take a couple of years to figure out.
Until artificial limits are removed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Until artificial limits are removed... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's usually a guarantee they don't hash passwords :/
Or they use some kind of encoding scheme instead that just lengthens with password size and letter case (DB field width will get maxed out) and don't use parameters for DB inserts/updates so special chars would wreak havoc with queries. Sometimes that's because they're running ancient software, but other times it's pure and simple laziness or disregard. It's hard to care about a project under near-slave-labor conditions in some of those sweatshops.
Re:Until artificial limits are removed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think that's all? Nope. With that you can only use IB in 'read only mode', not being able to perform any transaction that might make a debit to your account. Then you have to request a 'codes card', with is basically a very cheap version of a token, albeit a little less secure. Upon completion of each transaction you'd be required to type one of the codes in your card. Thing is, fraudters caught up to that pretty quicly, and started sending phising mail where they'd lead the baits to a website passing as the bank asking them to type all their codes for 'security purposes'.
So then they made it compulsory to register each computer you use IB with, therefore forcing you to use a whitelist to enable trusted computers. You actually have to go in person to an ATM machine and use your debit card + 3 letter PIN + 4 digit debit PIN to authorize each computer. Thing is, so many people have machines so full of malware that this wasn't enough to stop the fraudsters.
Next in line was their latest addition: now in order to be able to make transactions online, not only you must have the IB password, install a proprietary browser 'security plugin', the token card, authorize your machine previously on an ATM with your debit card + 3 letter PIN + 4 digit debit PIN, you also must have a mobile phone on your file with the bank. Then, after you use all your passwords and code card in a trusted machine, they then generate a 7-digit code that is send via SMS to your mobile phone (which can also be only updated in person or in an ATM with both pins).
What if you don't have a mobile phone? What if you don't have signal at the moment you want to perform the transaction? What if your phone battery is out of charge? Well, tough luck, you'll have to go to a Santander ATM machine, because all these security paranoia features are mandatory...
The thing is, this a perfect example of adverse selection in effect, so now every bank is demanding you to install proprietary plugins (which are usually modified rootkits themselves..) to ensure the safety of your machine before being able to use any IB. Some are already demaning the use of SMS on a per-transaction basis and the process of using IB is getting more inconvenient by the day...
When I compare that with the breeze that is using the IB for my HSBC account in the US... it makes me wonder how much inconvenience is enough to tolerate...
Biological validation (Score:2)
There's going to be a shift from passwords in general. Not only are they often insecure, but there's no verification that the person typing in the password is the user who owns it.
No, we're going to switch to biological means. This will be more secure, but as a side effect, there will be more assaults in which the eye/finger/penis is removed and used to gain access to these bio-protected systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the point of view of an remotely-accessible device, biometrics and passwords are identical. Any device can send a bit string and claim to have obtained it from a biometric scan, even if the bio in question is not present. As a result, they do not solve the problem of verifying the identity of a user.
Even worse, you end up using essentially the same password for everything, it can never be changed, and you carry it around everywhere you go on your face or hands.
Re: (Score:3)
There's going to be a shift from passwords in general. Not only are they often insecure, but there's no verification that the person typing in the password is the user who owns it.
No, we're going to switch to biological means. This will be more secure, but as a side effect, there will be more assaults in which the eye/finger/penis is removed and used to gain access to these bio-protected systems.
If someone has to remove your penis to get your password perhaps you should choose another profession.
Two factor authentication (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two factor authentication (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it's actual two-factor authentication. None of the fake crap that people call two-factor.
For the record, asking me to pick a picture isn't a second form. Something you know, something you have, etc...
Re:Two factor authentication (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's actual two-factor authentication. None of the fake crap that people call two-factor.
No kidding. My bank (I really need to change) uses two factor authentication. To log in you have to know both the username and the password! In order to make this more secure, they apply password quality requirements to both. Yes, that's right, your username must be mixed case and contain alphabetic and numeric characters, and must be at least 8 characters in length. Symbols are not allowed, however, since that would just be weird.
For the record, asking me to pick a picture isn't a second form.
Most places that use a picture aren't using it as a second authentication factor. It's an anti-phishing countermeasure. The idea is that you pick a picture when you set up your account and then every time you log in you should see your picture. If you don't see your picture, then you know you aren't really looking at your bank's (or whatever) web site, but an attack site. Of course it's not an effective countermeasure against attack sites that use your credentials to connect to the real bank site in the background, get the picture from the bank and then show you what you expected to see. But it does prevent some phishing.
Re:Two factor authentication (Score:4, Insightful)
Apologies for picking on you, but I'm getting fed up with deliberately unverifiable anecdotes on Slashdot. You could easily say which bank with no risk to yourself or the bank, simultaneously allowing us to confirm what you say and avoid said bank ourselves. But no, you deliberately keep it vague and avoid mentioning the name.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You probably aren't karma whoring with a make-up anecdote that is sure to please the Slashdot masses. A lot of posters clearly are being deliberately non-specific to make their made-up story impossible to disprove though.
Re: (Score:3)
You could easily say which bank with no risk to yourself or the bank, simultaneously allowing us to confirm what you say and avoid said bank ourselves. But no, you deliberately keep it vague and avoid mentioning the name.
I didn't do it deliberately, just didn't do it.
First Bank of Colorado. http://www.efirstbank.com./ [www.efirstbank.com] Though if you really want to check my anecdote you'll have to go to a branch and open an account.
Re: (Score:3)
That's actually a reasonable two-factor approach, IMO. The second factor is something you have: the phone. It's on you to give them a number for a phone you have fairly exclusive access to, but that's not too hard.
As for the fact that they use it to mark your computer as "trusted", that's also quite reasonable. What they're actually doing is converting the phone call/SMS second factor into a cookie second factor. Essentially making your trusted computer's browser's cookie store the second factor. That's n
Re: (Score:2)
Almost a good solution. But it isn't free, which is a problem. Your bank can issue two-factor authentication easily enough, as can any website of significant value. But what about, for example, a website like Tribal Wars: They have a great many users, but only a tiny per-user income. They survive by keeping the per-user cost low (There's a reason the site is mostly text). If you ask them to spend $15 to buy and mail a dongle to every user, they'll go out of business in an instant. So what do you propose? Th
Re: (Score:2)
Use Google Authenticator. The app runs on all Android and iOS devices and you can download an SDK to implement support for it in your system. If you do that, Google is not involved in the login process at all, you're just using their (open source) software, so there's no privacy impact.
However, it's also worth pointing out that using third-party authentications from Facebook, Google, etc. via OAuth also doesn't really impact privacy as much as you might think. The third-party authenticator only knows that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Google Authenticator thing is open source etc -- you can add it to PAM (on Linux), so you can authenticate for SSH or sudo.
I followed this a while ago, and didn't have any problems: http://www.howtogeek.com/121650/how-to-secure-ssh-with-google-authenticators-two-factor-authentication/ [howtogeek.com] (although I haven't kept using it, it was just an experiment).
There were some notes on making the implementation more secure, but I can't find the bookmark.
Duh...OK. (Score:5, Funny)
hunter22
Deloitte, get out from under the rock (Score:2)
Fine (Score:2)
I love old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
The relationship between password length and password strength is old news.
But don't tell users, tell the programmers and system admins. I regularly encounter systems where max password length is 12 or fewer characters. For some reason there are also systems that don't allow characters other than letters and numbers in passwords.
Let us make longer, more secure passwords. Let us use special characters, unicode, tabs and spaces!
Re: (Score:2)
For years a password that was at least eight characters long and included mixed-case letters, at least one number, and one non-alphanumeric symbol was considered relatively strong.
Yes, and those years were 1999 to 2004.
Re:I love old news. (Score:5, Informative)
xapsdogien32
> Error: Must include at least one punctuation character.
xapsdogien32!
> Error: Must not contain a dictionary word.
xapsd_ogien32!
>Error: Maximum length twelve characters.
psd_ogien32!
> Error: Must include an uppercase character.
A1!
> OK
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I love old news. (Score:5, Interesting)
12? I know a freaking BANK where the character limit for the password is 8. Yep 8 character password to online banking.
I was an IBM security consultant for about 10 years. I worked for all sorts of corporations big and small, talking to them about their security practices. Do you know which industry consistently had the worst security practices? Banking. It's amazing. I once talked to a bank that moves very large amounts of money (9+ figures) daily in wire transfers, communicated by kermit transfer of unencrypted files over a dialup modem. This was around 2005, and it actually wouldn't shock me to learn they're still doing it the same way.
Now I work for Google, and part of my job entails setting up secure communications with banks. Almost without exception every bank tries to argue us into lowering our security requirements. It's not like we're asking for anything crazy, either: strong encryption and mutual authentication using standard algorithms and protocols and adequately-large keys (e.g. 2048-bit RSA, 128-bit AES, etc.), with proper key exchange protocols and periodic key rotations. It's not rocket science, but it's beyond the IT staff of most banks.
I am frankly amazed that there aren't more major security breaches in our banking infrastructure.
I've gotchyer (Score:2)
Sites that prevent the browser from remembering pa (Score:2)
I'd be more than happy to use long, more secure passwords if I'd be allowed to let my device memorize them. More and more sites are using the HTML option that denies autofill, keeping devices from memorizing passwords on them.
It should be possible to tell a device to ignore that HTML option if you have a passkey set on the device. Not letting devices remember passwords is less secure than just allowing it because people will use weaker, easier to type in passwords.
Not to mention Google's bad habit of making
Re: (Score:3)
Git Rid of Asinine Password Requirements First (Score:5, Insightful)
Some password requirements are perfectly acceptable, even encouraged. There exist plenty, however, that just make one scratch one's head. Why would a maximum length any lower than several hundred characters ever be necessary? More egregious limitations include requiring an insanely complex number of symbol/letter/number combinations (easy for AI, hard for humans, as XKCD eloquently points out) and, of course, passwords restricted to numbers only. Sadly financial institutions seem to be fond of this one, possibly under the mentality that a PIN is just as good as a password, and customers won't forget that!
Re: (Score:2)
There are two reasons I can think of the maximum length limits:
- Badly-written software using too-short fixed space allocations.
- Reducing the number of users who come up with a super-secure long password, but forget it themselves by the next day.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would a maximum length any lower than several hundred characters ever be necessary?
Because it's on a mainframe. I worked for a place where there was a limit of 8 alphanumeric characters because they didn't want to change the width of the mainframe column. I finally convinced them to have a long, hashed web password separate from the mainframe that then looked up the (of course unencrypted) mainframe password and then fed the mainframe password into it for the call. While still insecure internally, at least we were secure EXTERNALLY.
Secret Plans (Score:5, Informative)
I think some places encourage short passwords. StudentLoans.com is Citibank's site for, you guessed it, student loans. The MAX password length is eight characters. That only encouraged me to pay off my loan to them faster just so I wouldn't have to deal with security like that.
Of course, nowhere in the signup do they warn you that only the first eight characters of your password will be accepted, nor does the login box limit you to inputting eight characters. I signed up with abcdef12345678 and tried signing in with abcdef12345678 but it gave me password refused. By luck, I tried abcdef12 and it worked. Screw Citi and all of the others still using password schemes from the early 90s
Passphrases (Score:2)
We should encourage the use of longer passphrases rather than passwords and eliminate or raise limits on their length. It's much easier to remember a sentence than a string of random characters.
Too many banks in the US also have limits on both user names and passwords. :(
Use TPM (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, store your password on a TPM chip, from where the hash can not be stolen and where the attempt rate can be regulated. This way even 7 character passwords can be quite secure.
Longer? (Score:2)
passwordpasswordpassword
It would be nice... (Score:3)
no solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Password length matters to brute force attacks - and if your application allows a brute force attack to happen, it is broken already, insecure by design.
Enforcing longer passwords will not improve security for real-life cases. Enforcing more cryptic passwords will actually reduce security for real-life cases. Why? Because people will need to type slower, making shoulder-surfing easier. People will start to write passwords down, and they will re-use passwords more often.
You can't solve this issue with simple solutions like "use longer passwords". The only thing that will do is make "password1234" the new standard instead of just "password".
Re:There should be a limit to password retries. !0 (Score:5, Funny)
My data is backed up to the cloud. Try wiping that.
not my problem (Score:4, Informative)
I've got logins for what... 200 sites? This is a problem for the sites, not me.
Passwords don't work. Think of something new. I can not remember 200 passwords that are 9+ characters, can't contain real words, have special charcters and God knows what else.
The solution for the end user? Don't use these sites for anything important. Don't store and personal information. Don't do business with sites that retain your credit card number and give you no option to not store it.
Just use voice recognition already! (Score:3)
I speak all my passwords aloud into either my desktop microphone, laptop microphone or mobile microphone. This allows me to use the longest phrases without having any difficulty typing. People get a bit annoyed when I'm using the computers at the library but I explain it's all in the best interest of security.
Sneakers (Score:3)
I already use a 25 character password. (Score:5, Funny)
So this (just use an 8 character password) is for sissies. I also don't write my passwords down and they include special characters, large and small letters, numbers, and are completely random. It's not possible to crack a 25 random character password. I suggest everyone follow me and use 25 characters at least.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if you are joking. Why would it be impossible to crack?
Serious whoosh. Everyone knows that a 25 character password will only be impossible to crack until 2038.
Er... "delay loop"? (Score:3)
This strikes me as largely a non-issue caused by poor login security design.
Why not simply code the authentication such that for every successive request that fails to a given account, an enforced delay of, say, the square of the number of sequential login failures to that account, in seconds, is applied before the next attempt?
This would allow for actual humans to make several errors at an slowly-increasing wait each time, whereas for a scripted attack, after 200 tries we're up to 11 hours per try and growing fast. It seems that a brute-force attack becomes entirely unlikely to succeed under these conditions.
Standard Linux distros interject a delay between login attempts, why isn't this considered basic and expected good design for all login authentication contexts?
Rodney McKay's password? (Score:3)
Password strength should match importance (Score:3)
I at least try to use better passwords for more important logins. I don't waste brain power or worse resuse high quality passwords for sites where it really doesn't matter if my account gets hacked.
The annoying trend I see that the sites that most often enforce "better" passwords are the ones I don't care about. Must have at least one upper and one lower character, must have a non-alpha numeric character, no more than two consecutive characters: All this just so I can post to a web forum. Meanwhile the bank will accept almost anything.
Future Article: (Score:5, Funny)
Deloitte, get with the times (Score:3)
Who in their sane mind (in ITSEC, that is) is still dabbling with brute force problems? Seriously, Deloitte, stick with economy audits, at least there you can't do much more harm than has already been done to this economy, but stay out of real work, will ya? At least we could do without your "recommendations" to your clients to require bizarre combinations of characters from their employees that only leads to them noting them down on a post-it and stick it underneath their keyboards (which, oddly, you do NOT have a recommendation against ... but I ramble).
Whether your password has 3 or 30 characters, and how many special characters in what odd combination and how many generations back you may not repeat even 2 of those characters again is moot. NOBODY on the "other side" bothers with brute forcing anymore. Passwords are being sniffed, hacked or simply lifted in other ways, from keyloggers to the good old "this is your IT-department on the phone, we need your password". And when I have your secretary TELL me her password, it's frickin' pointless to make it 100 chars long. Only means I have to talk to her longer. Which, I admit, may or may not be a nuisance to me when I get tasked with testing something you "secured". Depending on how nasty the voice of the person I audit is.
The security hole is NOT the length of your password. Get with the times, brute forcing just simply and plainly takes too long. Even if it's only a 3 char password, there are simply ways that get the attacker access far easier, more reliably and with a lot less effort.
Re: (Score:2)
But it takes much longer to type in
Re:Passwords are shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not. I can type my mis-spelt Shakespeare quote of a passphrase faster than I can type an obtuse non-alphanumeric-laden password, because I'm far better at typing English sentences than I am weird symbol sequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you hunt and peck for everything.
FWIW, it took me about half the time to type the above line than it takes to type my current 12 semi-random character password.
Re: (Score:2)
... and don't give me that 'muscle memory' crap, if you're rotating passwords like you should, muscle memory doesn't even come into the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but LastPass does!
Re:Passwords are shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because a lot of websites, especially financial sites, have stupid limitations on password length and/or complexity.
Re: (Score:3)
My bank (not named to protect the guilty) has the following restrictions on password:
Name and shame away! Stupid password restrictions like that is a telltale sign that they are storing your password in plain text. Probably on some really arcane or buggy system if it doesn't even handle case-sensitivity correctly. The only way that companies are going to get their act together is if customers change to a competitor because they are fed up with crappy account security.
Re: (Score:3)
Verified by Visa is like this with the added hassle of asking for three specific letters from the password. This is bloody annoying as it means having to tick off letters on your fingers / some mental map to pick the right ones. Even if you have an eight letter word as the complete password who keeps it stored as a byte array in their head? It only adds security by irritation to the one person who is actually authorised to use the damned thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Passphrases are uncommon because many sites think that "at least" means "exactly" when setting up the user database.
I've dropped one bank because of it. And those secret question/answer fields that are also 8 characters long because they might waste entire megabytes of storage if everyone had room for a complete response.
Re:Why the heck are faster computers a problem at (Score:4, Insightful)
We should have legislation prohibiting cleartext and unsalted password storage. At least for any site that handles money. That will help quite a bit to inhibit the sort of casual database cracking that goes on today.
Re: (Score:2)
We should have legislation prohibiting cleartext and unsalted password storage. At least for any site that handles money.
Personally, I'm surprised PCI doesn't require this already.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that most people demand to use an easy to remember password and will stubbornly ignore their own password hints. This happened quite a lot at a fashion company I worked for (I wasn't responsible for the web end, thankfully), and customers kept complaining, no joke, "why should a password be case sensitive?"
It wasn't uncommon for customers to blurt out their passwords on the phone either. One lady started giving me her credit card number out of the blue, thinking that was the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Two reasons:
Firstly, because the attacker may not need to authenticate against the server, if they have managed to hack in and get the encrypted password or found a way to determine it by MITMing a legitimate authentication.
Secondly, because what you describe is itsself abuseable for DoS attacks. It allows an attacker to simply log in repeatedly with a bad password to disable an account. Even if the account can be reenabled after some effort, that's enough to cause serious disruption in some fields. Lock th
Re: (Score:3)
Examples:
[...]
Hell: 1_L1k3_B1g_Butt5
How DARE you rip off Jonathan Coulton like that?!?!??!