"More research needs to be done into how to choose and use your “banned list,” but Jim Fenton thinks that 100,000 entries is a good starting point."
How will that impact performance? Does someone want to wait 1-2 minutes to process such a validation?
"No composition rules"
Big time important. Rules make it easier for passwords to hack.
"No password hints."
Well this means people are forced to write their passwords on a sticky note then. There are security implications for that.
"No more expiration without reason. "
GREAT TOPIC! I'm very curious to know how many of my fellow CISSP's are planning to move to passphrases or may have already gone to passphrases.
- If you have, I'd love to know how easy it was for the user's to adopt?
- Do you have any suggestions to make it less painful?
- Did you have to offer user training?
- Thoughts on Diceware vs. traditional user created Passphrases?
Thanks to anyone who might be able to provide some insight.
Surely it isn't just size but complexity too? Given the option the majority of people will choose convenience over complexity and your ordinary user will opt for a 'Loved One' password, e.g. juliet. When encouraged to better their passwords a more evolved version of this will become Juliet01. However, forcing a user to include a special character makes the evolved password + special character 23.5 x stronger under brute force conditions.
I'm also in favour of forcing users to periodically change their password. Some users will quite openly volunteer their password with the littlest of encouragement. In areas that have high staff turnover or take on students for temporary assignments changing passwords is essential, even if it is an incremental change. That's better than the alternative.
End user education is essential. It's important to offer up suggestions to what makes a good password be it passphrases, keyboard pattern strokes or anything else. I teach my users the difference between passwords that are crackable and passwords that are guessable.
@bmullen I don't really understand how the two are related. Can you explain it to me?
The concept behind SQRL is to remove any shared secret with the end server. It instead moves authentication to the smartphone which holds the secret key used for authentication.
It seems like Trusona only moves the shared secret away from the target end server to an OOB authentication server.
I agree mostly with the new changes. 90 day expiry drives me nuts. BUT (you knew there would be one), the only thing that some interval of expiry prevents to some degree is the cardinal sin of passwords: re-use.
Right now, users won't change their consumer based passwords to be in alignment with enterprise standards, it's too much of a hassle. But if expiry were eliminated altogether? I think there is a stronger risk here.
As a result, I'd love to see a middle-ground (almost said compromise, heh), of maybe changing once a year.
Also, if this is going to be successful, enterprises need better signals when passwords are compromised in the wild & tied to enterprise data (ie. email address). This can trigger a forced change, which I'm fine with.
I found this article to be a good read on password standards:
Particularly, this statement:
"If someone really wants to have a password that's an emoji representation of the first verse of "Let It Go" from Frozen, good on 'em!"
@noel From and end-user perspective the two are very similar - scanning a QR code vs. logging in with user/pass. This is particularly beneficial when the user is logging in from an unknown source that could have a keylogger active.
No password is exchanged with Trusona. Just as you say with SQRL - it moves the authentication to a smartphone app, which means that you would need to trust that the smartphone is secured appropriately. But in this day and age where most software-based, user-facing MFA is on a smartphone, that shouldn't be anything new.
I'm not a salesman for the product and I don't work for the company, so I wouldn't be able to go deep here. I've just seen the product demoed and it looks promising and, at least to me, very similar to SQRL code authentication.
Matthew - first, thank you for your service to our country!
I agree the revised standards are an improvement, however clearly there is a gap between the auditors and the regulatory bodies as there are a TON of financial services companies that still do not allow full ASCII characters in form fields. In a time when almost every presentation layer framework has built-in functionality to assist with input fields, through very very simple approaches to mitigate risks throughout the stack - I still constantly see terrible implementations. All commercial and even open source directory servers I am aware of allow for account suspension (Time based, error based, etc). I am more concerned about organizations that opt for hashing passwords.
The one area I feel is a mainstay is the shift to the producer from a verification and complexity standpoint. UX continues to be the big dog on campus and as long as we see more and more devices making user experience a top priority - many existing controls are going to be ignored, avoided or implemented in such ways that they defeat any benefit. I suppose if emoji's need to be represented (terribly strange to me), this still just aligns with Unicode. Mobile devices usage of biometric authentication should continue to reduce the focus on things we should have been requiring a decade ago.
When I teach the Safe and Secure Online program to children and elderly alike - there are very simple instructions on password creation tips - why cant the W3C just provide an RFC that is available for anyone when creating an account?
"End user education is essential"
100% agree - the trick is finding a way to make a meaningful approach towards the enormous variance of intelligence, experience et al.