this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
550 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

61394 readers
5730 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
550
NIST proposes barring some of the most nonsensical password rules (arstechnica.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Here is the text of the NIST sp800-63b Digital Identity Guidelines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Some implementers reuse the same salt for all passwords. It's not the worst thing ever, but it does make it substantially easier to crack than if everything has its own salt.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

That's a pepper not a salt. A constant value added to the password that's the same for every user is a pepper and prevents rainbow table attacks. A per-user value added is a salt and prevents a number of things, but the big one is being able to overwrite a users password entry with another known users password (perhaps with a SQL injection).