Re:NIST advises services to not require that passwords be ch...
by kevhito on Saturday May 20, 2017 @01:51PM
(#14383484)
Can you back up these recommendations with actual studies or research papers? Or are you just making up your security strategy by gut instinct here?
Re:NIST advises services to not require that passwords be ch...
by ScottBurson on Saturday May 20, 2017 @02:43PM
(#14383695)
Even if it's the latter, they're actually thinking about what they're trying to protect and what system would work best to protect it. That has got to be an improvement on the mindless, cargo-cult approach to security that most organizations take.
During the rework, we focused on a few things primarily:
1. Reduce password complexity, enforce legnth 2. Restructure account creation around least-privilege principal, so that access had to be granted, not just created during account creation, and also allow fast and easy addition and removal of access to system as part of the Management System 3. Revisit password expiries based on level of access and relative strength of password (as determined by zxcvbn)
Students and low level staff loved it - if you had a standard account and didn't have any access to anything sensitive that didn't belong to you, your password could sit untouched for up to 2 years I think if it met the strength requirements.
Those with access to actual sensitive data (student records, finances, etc), were held to a higher class of password complexity and would suffer a rotation penalty if they didn't have a sufficiently complex password; this mostly did away with the number of people with very common passwords, though it didn't go without a lot of fighting for some of the administrators, which, as I remember the discussions anyways, were more pride issues than anything. We used that as an opportunity to roll out password managers