Slashdot Mirror
Enforcing Crytographically Strong Passwords
Saqib Ali writes "The WebAppSec mailing list at SecurityFocus is currently having an interesting discussion on how to force users to use cryptographically strong passwords. The original poster suggested displaying a list of randomly generated password for the user to choose from. Two issues pointed with this concept, were Shoulder surfing and the fact that a bunch of randomly generated passwords are hard to remember. A counter proposal was to use pronounceable but randomly generated password. A full summary of this discussion is available. Any thoughts from slashdotters?"
Yes, I have a suggestion. Don't force people to use stronger passwords. If they choose to use a weak one then when it is cracked, that'll be their fault. In either case, how many of us actually have to worry about someone breaking our passwords?
The whole point of passwords are to deter regular joe from from gaining access. Yet anyone with enough time and commitment can and will break any password or encryption method ever created.
For the more important stuff (like my credit card details) I use a random generated password 10 characters long, mixing normal letters, capitals and numbers. But if I had to use several of these, I would have to start writing them down (I am in my mid twenties, recently graduated from a medical school, so I like to think my memory is quite good).
:)
Forcing an average user to use a difficult random password is like asking them to write it down on their monitor (I've seen this done more often than I can remember - and don't forget my memory is good
Wouldn't a non-random but still difficult to guess password be more secure?
Using the method mentioned in the article (e.g. t7p4i0t1 for combining a phrase a and a number) is OK until you are forced to change the password too often. Was it "pearl in the river" and my birthay or was that last time and now it is "lorem ipsum dolor" and my wife's birthday?
Seems to me that forcing too secure passwords unto yours users is bound to be insecure in the end.
If you make passwords the users can't remember they will just write them down. If they're pronounceable that helps, but only so much. Lists like this help, but ultimately you just have to tell your users to use the best passwords they can and hope that's good enough. Making them use passwords too "secure" will hurt you more.
I am trolling
The problem is that this is even LESS secure than than just no convention.
Sure, you get rid of idiots using "password" or something, but brute forcing all combinations of 2 4-6 letter english words plus 2 digits is rediciously easy...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I thought this discussion is long over. Everybode knows that there are two possible solutions to theis problem.
A) Either use a passsentence instead of just a word, most modern systems allow for rather long passwords. Since the sentence makes sense it is easy to remember. Since the sentence has many characters, it is pretty hard to crack with current tools. Dictionary tools may change this, put place a few strange names or made-up words in the sentence and you are much saver as any 8 char password today.
B) If stuck with old systems, I usually recommend the secretaries to write their passwords down. YES! Comparing the risk that one of the ~250 daily stupid attemps to guess passwords from random idiots succeeds is MUCH larger if people are told to remember their passwords. They'll automatically choose simple ones. I guess about two or three passwords in our own system per week. If they choose a very complicated passwd and write it down, then an attacker needs to be physically in the office to steel it. If the guy is physically in the secretaries office, he has no problem getting everywehere anyway and we have much bigger problems.
Cheers
KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing
AFAIK, the current thinking among those to have to enforce strict security is to use phrases
Most modern password systems allow an almost arbitrary length password, and randomly generated passwords are not working - people simply write them down in order to remember them.
Take a phrase that is meaningful to the user, say, 'My car is a red Ford' and add some simpleobfuscation 'My c@r is a red-F0rd!', and you have a phrase that is not only easy to remember, but is going to take a lot of effort to brute-force.
First mistake, having an IT policy that forces users to remember dozens of passwords. Second mistake, telling a user to put their passwords in a plaintext file on the desktop. Third mistake, posting that fact on /. without posting as AC.
I'm not making fun of you, but I feel for those admin b/c nobody would make such a policy unless forced by the higher ups.
Security is based upon three types of authorization: 1) something you know (password) 2) something you are (biometrics) 3) something you have 3) a key of sometype. Assuming that security is this important to your org, maybe you should get some type of thumb drive with a security credential and then you could use weak passwords safely. Or biometric fingerprint ids (now available from IBM) plus weak passwords. But the policy your network has in place is probably weaker (b/c I'll bet many people have these plaintext files) than a much slower password cycle.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Weak passwords are a reality. In my current job, I've got eleven different systems that require a password. If you think I'm going to selct and memorize a cryptograhically correct password for each and every one of them every three months when the passwords are set to expire, you're insane.
The more important and sensitive systems get strong passwords. The web-based tool I use to diagnore hardware issues in equipment that isn't even online? It gets something easy to remember.
For non-technical users, the situation is worse. If you get too psychotic in your password policies, they're just going to write them down on a post-it they stick to the underside of their mousepad if they're bing circumspect, and right to the monitor if they're not.
If you're dumb enough to run a system so braindamaged that it allows brute-force attacks and so insecure that running a decrypt on a password file gives the bad guys the keys to your palace, you need a strong password policy. You will also deserve to be mocked when a soceng hack allows someone into the building to look closely at any monitors bearing post-it notes.
Password security is the last refuge of the incompetent sysadmin or web developer. Careful separation of user roles and discouraging escalation of priveleges is more important than someone using gpe~9u?bi4 as their password for this week.
SoupIsGood Food
No wonder people write down their passwords on postit notes stuck on their monitors.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Easy, but still much better than the usual girl's name/birthday style. Consider there are at least 10.000 words in the average person's vocabulary. So two words gives you 100 million possible passwords, add two digits and you have 10 billion. Actually, this is the system I personally use, I feel comfortable with it. It's not invulnerable but safer than most.
That's such a good idea, it's already been done. One example is:
Password Helper
Use the Password Helper panel to pick a secure password.
From mac os X 10.4.