In password security, the longer the better. With a password manager, using more than 24 characters is simple. Unless, of course, the secure password is not accepted due to its length. (In this case, through STOVE.)

Possibly indicating cleartext storage of a limited field (which is an absolute no-go), or suboptimal or lacking security practices.

  • Kushan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You have described all of the guidelines that NIST, Microsoft, GCHQ and a few other institutions now recommend for password security.

    And yet I still have to have this argument with so-called security engineers and my favourite, compliance officers.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      the guidelines that NIST, Microsoft, GCHQ and a few other institutions now recommend for password security

      Because they are morons that don’t understand entropy.
      Requiring at least 1 number increases entropy less than simply allowing the use of numbers, and then recommending it.
      But most password queries are lousy at describing what’s allowed when creating it, and they generally don’t describe it at all when you enter it for access.
      The second part can be crucial for remembering exactly how the password was created, because what is now required, used to often not even be possible to use!