Cybersecurity

5688 readers

70 users here now

c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.

THE RULES

Instance Rules

Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
No Ads / Spamming.
No pornography.

Community Rules

Idk, keep it semi-professional?
Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.

If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.

Learn about hacking

Hack the Box

Try Hack Me

Pico Capture the flag

Other security-related communities [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Notable mention to [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

NIST proposes barring some of the most nonsensical password rules (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The latest NIST guidelines now state that:

Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types) for passwords and
Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT require users to change passwords periodically. However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Makes sense. Most compromises aren't brute force attacks. Allow all the characters and any brute force that is attempted will have to assume they're part of it.

Removing required periodical changes means people are less likely to use the same password and just increment a number added to the end. A compromised password with a setup like that is still compromised, they can make an educated guess as to what the new number is based on when was compromised compared to now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Please don’t take those recommendations out of context.

They also recommend MFA, but people only ever bring up the “no rotation” bit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Are they at least recommending non-SMS MFA now?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Emphasis was from the article, not mine.

They also recommend not using knowledge based prompts, allowing at least 64: characters,