> I don't think that is true at all.

I've run into a couple of sites that reject passwords containing ', %, and other special characters that suggest there may be some truth to it.

If you're scrubbing input as if it's about to be insert into a database via SQL, then there's really only two possibilities. Either a) you're running legacy code that still does the check and does blind escaping (which has its own set of implications) or b) you really truly are storing passwords as plain text.

Or they're cargo-culting on decades of experience where special characters are verboten.

Hah, good point. Although I do have to wonder: When does it turn into filtering by force of habit? After all the legacy cruft has long been forgotten and is no longer maintained?

Because the other monkeys will chew you out if you start doing it differently all of a sudden. Nobody knows exactly why we're doing it the way we are doing it, but it is complex, and changing it might break something.

It's the five monkey experiment:

http://johnstepper.com/2013/10/26/the-five-monkeys-experimen...

It's not always that.

Let's use the "filtering chars from password" example above. You can't put some special chars in password field, and you want to change that so it's doing normal hashing where special chars don't matter.

In a larger org, even changing a practice like that so that it "makes more sense" can have a big ripple effect.

You have to

* explain to someone else on the team who came up with the original process that it's flawed (and why)

* explain to other dept that they need to update their testing process (and why)

* get support dept to change their language/process

* change outbound messaging in all affected places (perhaps with code you can't touch, involving other teams)

* possibly have a flag that deals with 2 versions of data

Even if your change brings you in to line with normal/safe practices, you may have to fight multiple inane battles, spend loads of time and political capital, and at the end of the day, you'll be able to also accept a !"@+'$ in a password field? Most people will not grasp the bigger issue at play.

At a small business convincing colleagues isn't that hard. At a larger corporation, getting the rest of the team on-board is the job of whoever is in charge of defining security policies and such. Not allowing characters present on all keyboards and input devices (!"@+'$) statistically increases the risk of people picking weaker passwords then possible, and he/she will guide that change through the proper processes, for example to make sure that any client software interacting with the backend is aware of the upcoming change. Same as with any security issue (e.g., the deprecation of SSLv3 ciphers in favour of newer TLS versions).

If a business can't handle a change like this, something is really broken in the development pipeline. Granted, that describes a lot of medium sized companies…

Take that one 'request' - possibly initiated by a jr-mid level developer - and stack it up against the 500 other todo items in the pipeline. You can make those arguments about "statistically increases the risk of people picking weaker passwords " - unless this increases a bottom line or comes out of someone else's budget, this sort of 'bug' is going to be really low down on the totem pole for all the reasons I mentioned, and a few others.

You can says "the process is broken" but it's also that same process that got people where they are, puts food on their table, pays for the lifestyle, and precious few people are willing to ever rock the boat at any company for anything.

Which gets back to some of the cargo cult thing too. It's not uncommon in a large enterprise to smack up against things like "Years ago we paid a highly trained Security Consultant a large amount of money to develop our Security Guidelines, who are you and where are your security credentials to tell us to do things differently?"

Even worse when that "Security Consultant" is still a retained coworker with a fiefdom to maintain by war at all costs, a wizened old greybeard whose seniority will always trump yours, and/or your boss.

Or they scrub ; from ALL arguments before considering what kind of argument it is instead of scrubbing only where that might be needed.

There's a related issue that I've seen in some banks, which prevents you from using passwords LONGER than a certain number of characters (usually 8 or 10). The only reason I can think this is happening is because they don't hash them and they need to fit in their database column. I took my money out of that bank the next day.

Could just as likely be some process that still needs to pass the password around in a fixed-length file format to some ancient backend process written in COBOL living in the cthulian abyss deep in the bowels of the bank that no one dares rewrite from fear that it would destroy the bank from inside.

All of those checks can easily be done client-side, though. Of course this means you can't guarantee that none of these rules are violated, but I suspect that the users capable of bypassing this aren't the ones you're concerned about anyways.

The server does have to have access to the plain text password in memory, you know. I don't see why you think it's worth sacrificing guarantees of password strength to uphold some kind of taboo.

No it doesn't. You can perform the first pass of salted hashing on the client-side.

This should not harm security, but it can improve it if someone on the datapath is logging requests but does not alter them.

so you just replaced the password with another secret, the hashed password. An attacker would now not need to gain access to the original password, but needs the hashed password - which will be logged just like the PW.

The only security benefit is that it offers a bit of support for those that are reusing passwords since it doesn't expose the plain text.

Most people reuse passwords, so that isn't a trivial benefit.

Isn't that what SSL does? And if the SSL between you and the destination is compromised, you don't even know if the hashing algorithm you asked the client to use is actually the one they used.

Yep. And importantly, SSL is securing more than just the password - if you just salt + hash client side, then anyone watching gets to do a replay on that value instead of the original.

> You can perform the first pass of salted hashing on the client-side.

Not really. JavaScript crypto is fundamentally broken: an attacker, malicious server or disgruntled employee can replace server-side JavaScript and remove the client-side hashing at any time. This is, notably, why Firefox Accounts are completely and totally insecure (and hence why Sync is unsuitable for storing any private data at all).

Can you reassure me about the worst horror I've seen?

That is: a listed-and-enforced ban on obscenities in passwords. Is there any world in which that company isn't butchering their security in some serious way? (It's Time Warner, so not a small-time deal here).