It's not quite complete without code on the password reset page to tell you that you can't reuse your password.
And label the text box "username" when it only accepts email address.
Don't forget to have hidden password requirements and secretly truncate any password longer than 12 characters.
Well yeah, if you don’t truncate the password to 12 chars how will you fit the plaintext in a memory efficient fixed latin1 CHAR column that only accepts letters, numbers, and underscores
/s
And then validate the email with a custom regex that definitely doesn’t account for all the valid syntax permutations defined by the several email-oriented RFCs
I've had that before and I'm very confident the password was correct - my theory is that they'd changed how non-ASCII characters like £ were handled and their code only half recognised my password.
I never got that rule. Surely it is less secure to keep records of historical passwords than to let someone rotate between !!!! And #### etc
As a non programmer, is the joke that humans will retype their password assuming that they made a typo?
If so, sick indeed.
The guy coding made it so, on your first attempt, even if you answer correctly, it will tell you your login failed due to incorrect username or password, to joke about how it feels like you always get it wrong on the first try
The logic is bugging me, though. It should be if isFirstAttempt || !isPasswordCorrect
I understand the meme is trying to convey in spite of being correct to still return an error, but then it doesn't account for when the password is actually incorrect.
That defeats the brute-force attack protection…
The idea is that brute-force attackers will only check each password once, while real users will likely assume they mistyped and retype the same password.
The code isn’t complete, and has nothing to do with actually incorrect passwords.
Like the other person said, it's not meant to always fail the first time you enter any password.
It is meant to fail the first time you enter the correct password.
I would assume that I was being phished and the attacker wanted me to re-type the password to verify that it's correct.
Well, I sometimes input the same password 15-times in a row, and it works only on the last try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This could actually work though lol, it's genius
Rainbow tables and presumably newer stuff I haven't heard of make this sort of thing weaker than it used to be
Salting makes rainbow tables pretty much useless, and salting has been a standard practise for a few decades now.
How does a rainbow table help here? They're more for decoding unsalted encrypted database tables, rather than for actually trying to login.
The rainbow table would have to include every four word combination. At around half a million words in the English dictionary, that's not a small number.
As another XKCD comic illustrates, it's cheaper to use a wrench.
Dictionary attacks have been around for a long time, but It's still quite strong especially if you throw in a number.
A fully random 8 character password has about 10^14 brute force combinations (assuming upper and lower case + the normal special characters). 4 words choosen at random from the top 3000 words (which is a very small vocabulary really) is 10^13 dictionary attack combinations, add a single number or account for variations in word style (I.e maybe don't always use camel case) and you've matched the difficulty. If you use 5 words it's 10^17 combinations.
A password manager and a hard password is a better idea but there are cases where you can't use a password manager (like the password to said manager).
I'm a basic little shit so, I basically use a correct horse + number password for my PW manager
Yeah I thought about adding a note that it's pretty outdated - and dictionary based scans were always possible even if less common in the old days - like those infamous passwords "God", "Love", "secret", or like "admin".
The artist is pretty smart most of the time though so I presume they were aware of that possibility and meant that on a more basic level there are multiple ways to make passwords easier for a user to remember, not necessarily just this one rather simplistic take but as part of a whole approach. Then again, they didn't say that, and instead said this, thus the controversy.
Personally I gave up entirely and now I don't even know what any of my own passwords are, though my password manager does:-). I guess... if you cannot beat them, join them!?:-P
My current favorite "memorizable" method (obviously a random hash from a PW manager is still better) is to take a sentence of moderate complexity that includes the name of the service you're signing up for in it, and use the first letter of each word as your password.
For example, "When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is go to pawb.social."
Password would be "WIwuitm,tftIdigtps."
Easy to remember, immune to dictionary attacks, and you get a (mostly) unique password for each service, so stolen passwords can only access that one thing.
Edit: To be clear, the value is that you can use the same sentence everywhere, switching out the name of the service to generate semi-unique passwords for each service. Obviously someone analyzing your passwords would be able to figure out the pattern, but that's basically never what actually happens; it's more likely someone gets 1 password and tries your email address + that PW in a variety of services, which this is strong against.
It's not outdated at all, but you need more words.
See diceware, 7 to 8 words is typically all you need
The one guy got grey hairs in-between slides lol
If they had the password right the first try, that isn't a brute force attack, thats a credential leak.
I think the author attempted first time login to be with the right password.
It should be that it rejects the password the first time it's entered correctly but accepts it on every subsequent try. That actually would provide some protection against like dictionary attacks and raw brute force attacks.
could also work in a brute force scenario, but first attempt would be not first attempt in a set amount of time but first attempt for each password by the user in a fixed amount of time
Don't trust anyone - not even yourself
This is negging for auth.
Fine I'll just change my password to what I thought it should be.
*New password cannot match old password
I remember in college editing OpenSSH source code to instead of return wrong password to a root shell prompt just to stop brute force attacks
A honeypot!
But... arent they logged in as root then? Wdym with "prompt" i am lost
Won't protect against an offline attack (just will confuse the hell out of the hacker) but might confound an online attack? Until someone gets wise and runs the tool a second time. Loving the chaotic neutral vibes here.
It doesn't really even protect against online attacks though. Like, if you're going through a list of known accounts, by definition it won't be any of those accounts' first time logging in, right?
And if you're not going through a list of known accounts, good luck getting anywhere with your attack any time this millennia
Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be IsFirstLoginWithAttemptedPassword or am I missing something?
no, since it first checks if the password is correct. if it is, display error message. if it is corrent and the second time, accept the password (code not in screenshot) but if the password is wrong, it doesnt check if it is the first attempt.
No, it's correct - say your password gets leaked across thousands of passwords. A hacker will try to crack all of them with a program that guesses them once, which as the image suggests defeats these types of programs
This is a really interesting idea, but a password manager would throw a wrench in it.
I'd assume my password was invalidated or stored incorrectly, so I'd reset, then I'd try to log in, wtf... this website blows.
took me a solid 30 seconds of re-reading to get the joke
Add a randomizer with 50/50 succeeding for this error
