Password policy
-
One of my clients, with whom I have an email account set up, has a company policy on enforced password changes every month, which drives me nuts. I've tried to connive them that the received wisdom these days from security experts is that this is not a good idea - eg: The problems with forcing regular password expiry - NCSC Site[^] Time to rethink mandatory password changes | Federal Trade Commission[^] but as I'm not really a security expert myself perhaps I shouldn't be pushing this... anyway, they aren't listening to me.... but it's a pain in the derrierre .... am I right, or are they?
ask the clients IT dept to change your email to a forwarder to another email address on a sane system. best is your own domain if you have one - if they moan about security you can honestly say you 100% control access. Myself I registered a domain and pay the annual fees (domain, hosting) and it's only used for my own email (too lazy to do a page so website forever says "under construction.") For a few dollars a month handy coz I can add as many email addresses as I like (including temp for 1 time registration then remove to avoid spam), manage spam filters and even for testing apps that send emails.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
One of my clients
They are paying you to do a job; either do it with their requirements or don't get paid. Have you heard of how many control systems get hacked because people didn't change default passwords or change them on a regular basis? It is not so much an issue in the U.S.A. where companies are required by federal law to maintain secure environments, but it is still a threat.
Changing default passwords is another matter entirely, and of curse it's a no-brainer. As for
Quote:
They are paying you to do a job; either do it with their requirements or don't get paid
I have a good relationship with my clients - we can speak freely with each other.
-
ask the clients IT dept to change your email to a forwarder to another email address on a sane system. best is your own domain if you have one - if they moan about security you can honestly say you 100% control access. Myself I registered a domain and pay the annual fees (domain, hosting) and it's only used for my own email (too lazy to do a page so website forever says "under construction.") For a few dollars a month handy coz I can add as many email addresses as I like (including temp for 1 time registration then remove to avoid spam), manage spam filters and even for testing apps that send emails.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
-
Not just gratuitous self-promotion (because that doesn't work well) but you could really try my C'YaPass program (Users Hate Passwords (We're All Users): Never Memorize a Password Again[^]). It's free, open source, and there is code for 4 major platforms (windows, web, android, ios). The coolest thing in the latest version is that it remembers all those annoying password requirements* now. *Add uppercase, add special character, length req
-
One of my clients, with whom I have an email account set up, has a company policy on enforced password changes every month, which drives me nuts. I've tried to connive them that the received wisdom these days from security experts is that this is not a good idea - eg: The problems with forcing regular password expiry - NCSC Site[^] Time to rethink mandatory password changes | Federal Trade Commission[^] but as I'm not really a security expert myself perhaps I shouldn't be pushing this... anyway, they aren't listening to me.... but it's a pain in the derrierre .... am I right, or are they?
The customer is always rigght ......... or not!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
[NIST](http://nist.gov) has also changed its tune re: password change frequency, although I can't find their official policy document right now.
-
So change your password every month to My_ridiculous_password_1 through My_ridiculous_password_12 and then start over from the beginning.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
My_ridiculous_password_1 through My_ridiculous_password_12
Where I am now had the setting so it wouldn't let you re-use the last 9 passwords until they realized that the majority of employees were just using My_easy_password_1 to My_easy_password_0 then starting over at 1. So the fix? Change it to not allow you to use the last 20 passwords! Bet you can't guess what changed.
-
That's not the password reuse I'm referring to. Most users will use the same password on multiple systems. If system A has a more frequent password refresh period than system B, after that first refresh period they will be different from each other unless the user explicitly changes system B at the same time. However, most users will only change a password because they're prompted to, not because they had to for a different system, and they just end up tracking more passwords (again, why I advocate password managers).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
My world has to be black and white; either something can be trusted, or it can't. If it is outside my control, there will be no trust.
That's cool and great for dev work; but that viewpoint does not work for security modelling. Security models are built on people, which are more effectively tracked by statistical plotting than by binary behavior models.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
Most users will use the same password on multiple systems. If system A has a more frequent password refresh period than system B, after that first refresh period they will be different from each other unless the user explicitly changes system B at the same time.
So, by forcing the user to adapt to a predictable pattern, or find a way to game the system (as told by a co-worker, change the password four times, and it accepts the first, even if it is reused), you make things more secure? So, one of us goes for a lubber, the other for sterilization :)
Nathan Minier wrote:
Security models are built on people, which are more effectively tracked by statistical plotting than by binary behavior models.
Now you're not building on people, but on a matrix of risc vs. damage. A leak plugged with duct-tape is still a leak.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Most users will use the same password on multiple systems. If system A has a more frequent password refresh period than system B, after that first refresh period they will be different from each other unless the user explicitly changes system B at the same time.
So, by forcing the user to adapt to a predictable pattern, or find a way to game the system (as told by a co-worker, change the password four times, and it accepts the first, even if it is reused), you make things more secure? So, one of us goes for a lubber, the other for sterilization :)
Nathan Minier wrote:
Security models are built on people, which are more effectively tracked by statistical plotting than by binary behavior models.
Now you're not building on people, but on a matrix of risc vs. damage. A leak plugged with duct-tape is still a leak.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
The level of mental gymnastics that you're going through to justify being too lazy to change a password is astounding. If you put that much effort into understanding the other side of the argument, you might have a shot at understanding threat modelling.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So, one of us goes for a lubber, the other for sterilization :)
No, the only "sterile" computer is one that's powered down. I prefer my systems to be functional.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Now you're not building on people, but on a matrix of risc vs. damage. A leak plugged with duct-tape is still a leak.
Sure, but that matrix is based on a continuum of behavior, not a fantasy binary existence. Your analogy is insipid BTW, your attitude is to not attempt to plug the leak at all.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
(as told by a co-worker, change the password four times, and it accepts the first, even if it is reused),
FYI both pam_cracklib and LAPS can be configured to flag an age on passwords, i.e. no reuse for a set time. Windows 2K+ can sen a minimum password age via GPO. If users can cycle their passwords back to original in your environment, then clearly your security people are out of their depth.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
My_ridiculous_password_1 through My_ridiculous_password_12
Where I am now had the setting so it wouldn't let you re-use the last 9 passwords until they realized that the majority of employees were just using My_easy_password_1 to My_easy_password_0 then starting over at 1. So the fix? Change it to not allow you to use the last 20 passwords! Bet you can't guess what changed.
RJOberg wrote:
So the fix? Change it to not allow you to use the last 20 passwords! Bet you can't guess what changed.
The obvious solution is to not allow numbers at the end or start of a password. Of course that just leads to people using things like my1password, my2password, etc. So obviously you also have to require the first four characters of the password to be different each time as well.
-
One of my clients, with whom I have an email account set up, has a company policy on enforced password changes every month, which drives me nuts. I've tried to connive them that the received wisdom these days from security experts is that this is not a good idea - eg: The problems with forcing regular password expiry - NCSC Site[^] Time to rethink mandatory password changes | Federal Trade Commission[^] but as I'm not really a security expert myself perhaps I shouldn't be pushing this... anyway, they aren't listening to me.... but it's a pain in the derrierre .... am I right, or are they?
-
RJOberg wrote:
So the fix? Change it to not allow you to use the last 20 passwords! Bet you can't guess what changed.
The obvious solution is to not allow numbers at the end or start of a password. Of course that just leads to people using things like my1password, my2password, etc. So obviously you also have to require the first four characters of the password to be different each time as well.
Oh, there are many solutions: one of my favorites is to require a percentage of all letters to change to force the user to use a completely new password each time. Depending on how that is implemented, the user can just shift the entire password one character left or right and fool the entire mechanism. Mostly this is a game. It is "wily" network administrators against their own users who endeavor to circumvent the network administrators. You'll notice, while being adversaries in this battle, both are missing the true enemy lurking trying to find a way in!
-
The level of mental gymnastics that you're going through to justify being too lazy to change a password is astounding. If you put that much effort into understanding the other side of the argument, you might have a shot at understanding threat modelling.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So, one of us goes for a lubber, the other for sterilization :)
No, the only "sterile" computer is one that's powered down. I prefer my systems to be functional.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Now you're not building on people, but on a matrix of risc vs. damage. A leak plugged with duct-tape is still a leak.
Sure, but that matrix is based on a continuum of behavior, not a fantasy binary existence. Your analogy is insipid BTW, your attitude is to not attempt to plug the leak at all.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
(as told by a co-worker, change the password four times, and it accepts the first, even if it is reused),
FYI both pam_cracklib and LAPS can be configured to flag an age on passwords, i.e. no reuse for a set time. Windows 2K+ can sen a minimum password age via GPO. If users can cycle their passwords back to original in your environment, then clearly your security people are out of their depth.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
The level of mental gymnastics that you're going through to justify being too lazy to change a password is astounding
Similar to the way you jump to a conclusion? I'd simply demand a different type of lock - never claimed to be against locking or passwords.
Nathan Minier wrote:
your attitude is to not attempt to plug the leak at all.
We never discussed that part; but yes, if it leaks, I'd want a decent plug, not a 30 day rotating duct-tape.
Nathan Minier wrote:
If users can cycle their passwords back to original in your environment, then clearly your security people are out of their depth.
Well, like you, they work with "real" people, and it is about controlling risks there - not about avoiding them :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
One of my clients, with whom I have an email account set up, has a company policy on enforced password changes every month, which drives me nuts. I've tried to connive them that the received wisdom these days from security experts is that this is not a good idea - eg: The problems with forcing regular password expiry - NCSC Site[^] Time to rethink mandatory password changes | Federal Trade Commission[^] but as I'm not really a security expert myself perhaps I shouldn't be pushing this... anyway, they aren't listening to me.... but it's a pain in the derrierre .... am I right, or are they?
they are. But you can always find out how many passwords they look back and compare and change it back. Write a powershell script that does it. say that they only checked the last five. So change it six times and then back to the original. Set it to run at the first of the month. good to go.
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
The level of mental gymnastics that you're going through to justify being too lazy to change a password is astounding
Similar to the way you jump to a conclusion? I'd simply demand a different type of lock - never claimed to be against locking or passwords.
Nathan Minier wrote:
your attitude is to not attempt to plug the leak at all.
We never discussed that part; but yes, if it leaks, I'd want a decent plug, not a 30 day rotating duct-tape.
Nathan Minier wrote:
If users can cycle their passwords back to original in your environment, then clearly your security people are out of their depth.
Well, like you, they work with "real" people, and it is about controlling risks there - not about avoiding them :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
It would be nice if everyone had an embedded x509 hardware token, but that's simply not economically feasible for many organizations. Biometrics are still pretty sketchy and will be for a while yet. Passwords are simply a reality that need to be dealt with, and scoffing at management strategies for them doesn't help anyone.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Well, like you, they work with "real" people, and it is about controlling risks there - not about avoiding them :)
Yeah, exactly my point.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
ask the clients IT dept to change your email to a forwarder to another email address on a sane system. best is your own domain if you have one - if they moan about security you can honestly say you 100% control access. Myself I registered a domain and pay the annual fees (domain, hosting) and it's only used for my own email (too lazy to do a page so website forever says "under construction.") For a few dollars a month handy coz I can add as many email addresses as I like (including temp for 1 time registration then remove to avoid spam), manage spam filters and even for testing apps that send emails.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
-
It would be nice if everyone had an embedded x509 hardware token, but that's simply not economically feasible for many organizations. Biometrics are still pretty sketchy and will be for a while yet. Passwords are simply a reality that need to be dealt with, and scoffing at management strategies for them doesn't help anyone.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Well, like you, they work with "real" people, and it is about controlling risks there - not about avoiding them :)
Yeah, exactly my point.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
It would be nice if everyone had an embedded x509 hardware token, but that's simply not economically feasible for many organizations. Biometrics are still pretty sketchy and will be for a while yet.
If you go on a Dutch train you're already forced to use a hardware token.
Nathan Minier wrote:
Passwords are simply a reality that need to be dealt with, and scoffing at management strategies for them doesn't help anyone.
There are safer options than having the plain username/password combo. Scoffing works by the way, and it was for the good of anyone to point out that the medical website I was using is unsafe. Now scoffing alone means you're being a dick - so I also made sure to explain the alternative.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
One of my clients, with whom I have an email account set up, has a company policy on enforced password changes every month, which drives me nuts. I've tried to connive them that the received wisdom these days from security experts is that this is not a good idea - eg: The problems with forcing regular password expiry - NCSC Site[^] Time to rethink mandatory password changes | Federal Trade Commission[^] but as I'm not really a security expert myself perhaps I shouldn't be pushing this... anyway, they aren't listening to me.... but it's a pain in the derrierre .... am I right, or are they?