• Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Infuriating fact: if a service has maximum password length limits (lower than 1000 characters), they’re reversibly storing your password and if they’re that lazy it’s probably plain text

      • Downcount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you actually better not save the users passwords in plain text or in an encrypted way it could be decrypted. You rather save a (salted) hashed string of the password. When a user logs in you compare the hashed value of the password the user typed in against the hashed value in your database.

        What is hashed? Think of it like a crossfoot of a number:

        Let’s say you have a number 69: It’s crossfoot is (6+9) 15. But if someone steals this crossfoot they can’t know the original number it’s coming from. It could be 78 or 87.

        • twolate@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dumb question: isn’t it irrelevant for the malicous party if it’s 78 or 87 per your example, because the login only checks the hash anyway? Won’t both numbers succesfully login?

          • foudinfo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s actually a really good question. What you’re explaining is called a collision, by creating the same hash with different numbers you can succesfully login.

            This why some standard hashing function become deprecated and are replaced when someone finds a collision. MD5, which was used a lot to hash passwords or files, is considered insecure because of all the collisions people could find.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            In the example yes.

            In the real world, finding an input that produces the right hash output isn’t easy. And because a lot of users reuse passwords (don’t do it, but people do), a list of emails and passwords gives you an incredibly lazy and easy to do way to compromise accounts on other sites.

            • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Reminds me of a funny moment in my IT internship, ahead of an audit one of the sysadmins came over and was saying “yeah so I pulled all of the department password hashes to check for weak/compromised accounts and noticed one person has the same sysadmin and user password hash” and my boss went “wait everyone doesn’t do that?” And after realizing they outed themselves turned bright red and changed their admin password

          • Downcount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Additional to what others have said: The “salted” part is very relevant for storing.

            There aren’t soooo much different hashing algorithms people use. So, let’s simplify the hashing again to the crossfoot example.

            Let’s say, 60% of websites use this one algorithm (crossfoot) for storing your password, and someone steals the password “hashes” (and the login / email). I could ran a program that creates me a list of all possible crossfoots for all numbers for 1 to 100000.

            This would give me an easy lookup table for finding the “real” number behind those hashes. (Those tables exists. Look up “rainbow tables”)

            Buuuut what if I use a little bit of salt (and pepper pepper pepper) before doing my hashing / crossfooting?

            Let’s use the pw “69” again and use a salt with a random number “420” and add them all together:

            6 + 9 + 420 = 435

            This hash wouldn’t be in my previous mentioned lookup table. Use different salts for every user and at least the lookup problem isn’t such a big problem anymore.

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            With a hash it’s difficult to find a combination that results in this specific hashed password. Think of it like this: you have a biiig prime number and you multiply it by another. Now, that’s easy, but it’s way harder to do it backwards - factorize a large composite number (this is just for illustration). Similarly trying to find a password that works when you input it based on the hashed one is way more difficult than hashing the password in the first place.

        • Xandris@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          i was more wondering why a length limit implies anything about how they’re storing the password. once they receive the password they’re free to hash it any which way they want

          random memory—yahoo back in the day used to hash the password in the browser before sending it to the server, but TLS made that unnecessary i guess

      • Gurfaild@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the least bad case, they encrypt the password instead of hashing it, making it possible to decrypt the password.

        In the most common case, they store the password in plaintext, so there isn’t even any encryption to be reversed.

    • newsonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope. No point in storing > 256 or even 128 chars for a password anyway. Useless storage wasted. Also it doesn’t really mean they store the password badly in the server.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The length limit is mostly for the user’s sake - companies don’t want people to set their passwords to 30+ character ones that they keep forgetting and call their tech support to reset.

          • david@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s really really really annoying, as someone who has a good, strong brain-based password algorithm and hates it when websites forbid my strong password forcing me to make an exception.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ignoring that they must be hashed to be acceptable and that it’s not possible for 1000 characters of text to add up to a waste of storage worth mentioning in pretty much any environment, it’s literally impossible for a 128 character password limit to be beneficial in any way.

        A limit below that demonstrably lowers security by a huge margin.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They may just base their limit on one or a few block sizes of the hash function.

      • kevincox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sounds incredibly unlikely. I would be good money that 99% of password length limits are not based on concrete limits. Things like “100 should be enough 🤷” must be way more common.

        I doubt 1% of programmers are away of their hashes block size. It is also probably irrelevant since after the first round everything is fixed size anyways.

    • rubythulhu@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fun fact: Lemmy instances cap at 60. they’re not storing reversibly, they’re just using bcrypt and rather than pre-hashing the pw before bcrypt like most bcrypt users do, they just truncate to 60.