You're viewing a single thread.
And despite security recommendations, too many IT depts still force password resets every 90 days...
And people confronted with this change their password from "p@55w0rd!1" to "p@55w0rd@2". Yep extra-secure!
At some point most security recommendations are self-defeating.
I work in the IT section of a bank and they force a change every 30 days and can only have an 8 character password no more no less 🙃
Seems like a job for Bobby tables
A job I quit about 6mos ago required monthly changes. It was awful. And, yes, it absolutely led to me just incrementing a number at the end. I knew it was time to quit when I was about to hit double digit numbers.
you're saying not to hold a job for more than 10 months?
It was a joke.
But also, holding a shitty toxic job for 10mos took a mental health toll.
But also, I don't know, in some cases that might be good advice. Since 2020 I've changed jobs every 6-10mos and I'm making triple what I made in 2019, so that's nice.
@278 and going strong, across 7 companies. One time, just to mix things up, I used an exclamation mark instead. It was exhilerating. /s
Some IT guys have caught on to this and require 2 digits difference.
So "ThisJobSucks#11" becomes "ThisJobSucks#22"
How would they know how many digits changed? They don't store the password in cleartext.
Right?
...
Well they don't need to store it to a drive. You just entered your old password in order to login and authorise your password change.
It'll still be in memory against your session.
Sure if the means of authorising a password change is your old pw then everythings fine
Used to have monthly changes for a Microsoft account. When trying to change, it said "You used this password 6 months ago, please use another", besides the "passwords needs to be at least this different" message. Clearly they are storing them, not sure if they're stored cleartext or they're decrypting them on the fly somehow
You should not be able to decrypt a password, passwords aren't encrypted but hashed, they would be insecure would they be encrypted.
Hashing differs from encryption in that it is irreversible, because two or more strings might result in the same hash if the hashing function is applied to them (hashing is not injective).
But since your password will always yield the same hash you can compare the two hashes and if they are equal you are considered authenticated. If you try to log in with a different password (or even the hash of the correct password) then it will produce a different hash resulting in a failed authentication attempt
The way crackers get a password if they have the hash is by guessing pw candidates and using the hash function on them, if its the same as the hash they have they found the/a valid password. The guessing can be quite involved and with enough time and data about a victim often 12-13 digit passwords with special characters and all can be cracked - If the victim used a somewhat mnemonic pw that is. Generated pws from a password safe are much safer (but usually also longer).
In your case I suspect MS was storing a history of hashes which is not advisable as it gives potential crackers more to work with, but its way less bad then storing plain text or encrypting passwords
You could take the old password, change one or two letters and compare the hash to the hash of the new password?
That's the point though.
You're not supposed to have the old password. If you had the old password you could just compare it to the new password.
The only way you can do it is to take the new password and make a hash for every possible single-character variation and compare them all to the old hash
Sorry, that's what I meant as well :) Came out upside down when I wrote. We used to figure out shitty ISP router passwords this way by having a table of common passwords and their hashes.
They shouldn't be storing the old password hashed, either. Expired password hashes should be destroyed like any other potentially-sensitive information that is no longer business critical.
There is a reason hackers look to get users tables even though the passwords are hashed. Because with enough of them and enough time, they can usually figure out plaintext. Giving them 10 previous hashed passwords for each user is just increasing the hypothetical risk.
You're right ofc if you wanted to make a general remark, but wrong if you thought that was what I was implying. Never store hash histories, kids!
No you don't need to store anything in clear text to check password parameters
But you need to know previous password if the objective is to make sure there's at least two characters difference compared to new password
No, because password hashes. Read this: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/139738/company-can-tell-if-new-and-old-passwords-are-too-similar-is-there-a-security-p
I mean "because password hashes" is basically my original rational so not sure it qualifies as a counter argument.
But the link you provide is more explicit:
When the user enters the new password, the system generates the variations of the new password entered, hashes each one of them, and compares each hash against the old password's hash. If any of the hash matches, it throws an error. Else, it successfully changes the password
It is possible to hash all 1 character variations I guess, I kinda doubt that it is done often (does anyone know a library?).
I guess complexity increases linearly so password length is might not severely limit this mechanism. It would be interesting to see a calculation of how long it takes for a long password can to calculate all possibilities for 1 char variations for utf-8 or other charsets
Thanks for sharing the link!
Hey, how do you know my password?
{Sitename}+{SaLt}+{yymmdd of password change} easy peasy
I college we had to change our password every semester. Guess who added the semester number onto the end of their password. Hint: everyone.
Same as a government job that required monthly password changes. Well, at least those people had more security than the post-it note on the monitor people
NavyExchange!(ddmm of password change) for as long as I worked there, it was really only to use a register though, I had nothing compromising behind the password lock.
The worst is when you have a bunch of independent systems that all have their own login info, all configured by the dame IT department, all with different forced reset timers.
And despite security recommendations, too many IT depts still force password resets every 90 days...
It could be for contractual or for insurance reasons. We have some contracts with government agencies that require it, and our cyberinsurance also does. Even though NIST has been recommending for years to do long passphrase + MFA and no reset unless you suspect compromise.
So yeah, the reason behind this might not be just plain incompetence.
Doesn't that just mean it's the government agencies and insurance that are incompetent?
I've had arguments with clients' IT security about this in the past where they demanded forced password resets. Citing NIST controls that insist you should avoid them was apparently insufficient.