Re:Passwords for JetBlue accounts cannot contain a Q or a Z
by area51org on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @02:17AM
(#7742450)
Given the sheer number of arbitrary limits found in websites, I suspect your example is probably anecdotal.
It may have been as simple as someone piping something to a shell script to setup an account, and not escaping things correctly
This is precisely my point.
The char limit, well, they had to pick a limit (you wouldn't want passwords of 2^32 size), and back then security wasn't as big a focus so someone picked 16.
The reason for the original restriction is lost to history, as is apparently the handling of special chars. It may have been as simple as someone piping something to a shell script to setup an account, and not escaping things correctly. Who knows.
At any rate, Live has some extremely competent engineers, and this guy is brilliant. He said despite how bad it looks, every time they review security and prioritize things to work on, the password restrictions on Live never rank very high, compared to other attacks. People simply are not having their passwords brute forced enough for it to be a serious issue. Investing in things like e.g., detecting phishing attempts, has a much better ROI.
eli's comment is right: You shouldn't be too quick to judge the quality of developers when they need to maintain compatibility. At best, you might find out that a developer from a long time ago, operating under who knows what constraints (time, technical), failed to properly foresee the usage of his system.