this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
607 points (98.1% liked)

Privacy

32130 readers
812 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not only does the credit bureau max out their password length, you have a small list of available non-alphanumeric characters you can use, and no spaces. Also you cannot used a plused email address, and it had an issue with my self hosted email alias, forcing me to use my gmail address.

Both Experian and transunion had no password length limitations, nor did they require my username be my email address.

Update: I have been unable to log into my account for the last 3 days now. Every time I try I get a page saying to call customer service. After a total of 2 hours on hold I finally found the issue, you cannot connect to Equifax using a VPN. In addition there is no option for 2FA (not even email or sms) and they will hang up on you if you push the issue of their security being lax. Their reasoning for lax security and no vpn usage is "well all of our other customers are okay with this".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason to limit password length, is to save carrying cost on the database. But the only reason that this would be value added, is if the passwords are encrypted in reversible encryption, instead of hashed. Isn't this against some CISA recommendation?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

One other reason I could see is pure idiocy. Like I've seen that there is a bias to using every feature some software has, and if a max limit can be set, it will be set, to a "reasonable" value.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago

Maybe it's also a "it's the way we've always done it" BS that plays into it, too?

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

Even then, the difference between 20 and 2000 characters is negligible

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There may also be a (very weak) reason around bounds checking and avoiding buffer overflows. By rejecting anything longer that 20 characters, the developer can be sure that there will be nothing longer sent to the back end code. While they should still be doing bounds checking in the rest of the code, if the team making the UI is not the same as the team making the back end code, the UI team may see it as a reasonable restriction to prevent a screw up, further down the stack, from being exploited. Again, it's a very weak argument, but I can see such an argument being made in a large organization with lots of teams who don't talk to each other. Or worse yet, different contractors standing up the front end and back end.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago

They really shouldn't be sending the password over the line at all. It should be local hashed/salted, encrypted, and then sent. So plaintext length really shouldn't matter much, if at all. But I see your point.