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

Technology

58970 readers
5386 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 another!
  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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
546
NIST proposes barring some of the most nonsensical password rules (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
179 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 1 month 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 1 month 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).