In password security, the longer the better. With a password manager, using more than 24 characters is simple. Unless, of course, the secure password is not accepted due to its length. (In this case, through STOVE.)

Possibly indicating cleartext storage of a limited field (which is an absolute no-go), or suboptimal or lacking security practices.

  • x00z@lemmy.worldEnglish
    76·
    4 days ago

    The claim was that a limit on passwords implies plaintext storage. It doesn’t. There is no such thing as unlimited on computers.

    • Kissaki@feddit.orgOPEnglish
      92·
      4 days ago

      The claim was that a limit on passwords implies plaintext storage.

      quoting the post:

      Possibly indicating cleartext storage of a limited field (which is an absolute no-go), or

      It was not a claim that it certainly is plaintext storage. It was claimed to be a possibility. AND provided an alternative explanation.

      Maybe you’re more confident than me in good practices and implementations across all services. But I’ve seen enough to know that’s not always the case. It’s good to be skeptical on anything related to security.

    • troed@fedia.io
      62·
      4 days ago

      Don’t worry, I’m autistic myself and understand how difficult it can be to parse “it’s thus irrelevant how many characters the user’s password consists of” to mean something besides “all implementations must accept an unlimited amount of characters”.

      I do believe the point was understood by the general reader however.