thih9 4 days ago

Fascinating. In other words:

In order to force the user to change their password more frequently (long term), the user is prevented from changing their password too frequently (short term).

I wonder whether the person who added that is actually confident that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks or is that a case of tunnel vision.

eqvinox 4 days ago

There are also systems that keep a history of old passwords just to prevent you from reusing one.

  • jandrese 4 days ago

    I like the ones that not only keep a history of your old passwords but will reject any password that is similar to any of your 30 previous passwords, which means they're storing either a plaintext or reversibly encrypted list of every password somewhere on the system. Talk about a goldmine for the hacker that dumps that database.

    • Rexxar 4 days ago

      Something like that could probably be implemented by storing multiple hash of some automatically modified version of the password. For example, if your password is "PassWorD" they can additionally store the hash of the lowercase version of the password. So if you change it from "PassWorD" to "paSswOrd", they will see it has the same lowercase hash than the previous one without knowing it.

      • jandrese 4 days ago

        This doesn't seem practical at all. The combinatoral explosion would make the storage requirements impractical for everything but the absolutely most trivial cases like incrementing a number as the very last digit. Even in your simple example you're talking about storing 256 different hashes just to catch one possible mutation on a way too short password.

    • rightbyte 4 days ago

      Ye. If the insane password gatekeeper shenanigans doesn't make you input your old password together with the new, you know they store your passwords.

Viliam1234 2 days ago

The obvious solution is to have a Monday password, a Tuesday password, etc.