Not only does the credit bureau max out their password length, you have a small list of available non-alphanumeric characters you can use, and no spaces. Also you cannot used a plused email address, and it had an issue with my self hosted email alias, forcing me to use my gmail address.

Both Experian and transunion had no password length limitations, nor did they require my username be my email address.

Update: I have been unable to log into my account for the last 3 days now. Every time I try I get a page saying to call customer service. After a total of 2 hours on hold I finally found the issue, you cannot connect to Equifax using a VPN. In addition there is no option for 2FA (not even email or sms) and they will hang up on you if you push the issue of their security being lax. Their reasoning for lax security and no vpn usage is “well all of our other customers are okay with this”.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    29 days ago

    Imagine having to contract with a company in order for them not to fuck your life up with your own data. This is ridiculous.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      You signed a contract? Pretty sure they’re going to fuck it up either way and they definitely have all your data.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    28 days ago

    short passwords because they are trying to save bandwidth for their next time their entire database structure is downloaded

    • azalty@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      They’re supposed to be hashed so that shouldn’t matter

      Unless that’s the joke or something

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    28 days ago

    I swear password restrictions are getting to the point where there’s eventually going to only be one usable password.

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      28 days ago

      Yeah, it’s counterproductive to lay out a bunch of restrictions. Let people make a long-ass password that’s a memorable phrase - it’s safer anyway.

      Although I don’t know how anyone makes it without a password manager at this point.

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        28 days ago

        I don’t know how anyone makes it without a password manager at this point.

        Password reuse. Password reuse everywhere.

          • nocturne@sopuli.xyzOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            28 days ago

            When I have to sign up for something on my phone I will use my pre Bitwarden default password. Then once I have a sec to sit down iPad or laptop I will change it to something more secure.

            I am currently fighting with my wife and children to start using a password manager.

            • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              28 days ago

              The funny thing about that is that I am currently on my laptop getting keepassxc set up. This post has somehow motivated me to finally get a password manager.

            • filcuk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              28 days ago

              On your phone, you can select autofill, then ask bitwarden to generate a password, save and use that to register

              • nocturne@sopuli.xyzOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                23 days ago

                I have only used lastpass (they have had several breeches and I do not recommend them), Bitwarden (my current daily driver and my recommendation), and I have used Apple keychain a little for passwords at work that my wife can access without having full access to my Bitwarden.

  • davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    30 days ago

    Yeah well, if you’re so smart let’s see you write a website in COBOL.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    A 20 character password of case insensitive letters and numbers is quite unbreakable (taking billions of years to brute force). Still, what a strange way to announce your database is old and you probably aren’t hashing your password with anything stronger than MD5. Or worse.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      29 days ago

      My default is to generate a 32 character password and store it in a password manager. Doesn’t matter to me how many characters it has since I’m just going to copy and paste it anyway.

      Pretty surprising how many places enforce shorter passwords though… I had a bank that had a maximum character limit of 12. I don’t bank with them anymore. Short password limits is definitely is an indicator of bad underlying security practices.

    • 🅿🅸🆇🅴🅻@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      29 days ago

      A hash has a fixed length, including MD5. There’s no reason to cap password (input) Iength. You can hash the whole bible and still get the same length hash. So either they don’t even hash it, they’re idiots, or they try to be unnecessarily cautious to avoid some other limit / overflow, like POST max size (which would still be counted in at least KB, not several characters). The limit on what special characters you can use is also highly suspicious - that’s not how you deal with injections / escaping your inputs.

      • drivepiler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Hashing takes longer the longer the string is, so it technically could impact performance if many people with very long passwords log in simultaneously. 20 characters is ridiculous though, you could probably cap it at hundreds and still be completely fine.

  • Scott@lem.free.as
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    30 days ago

    This implies they’re storing the plaintext password.

    Ideally the password would be hashed with a salt and then stored. Then it’s a fixed length field and it shouldn’t matter how long the password is.

    • Helix 🧬@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      30 days ago

      Or a very very old database system, possibly DB2, where you can’t change the column limits or data types after the fact.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        29 days ago

        If they’re hashing, the column size should be irrelevant. Ideally the database should never see the plaintext password in the first place (though I could understand calculating the hash in the query itself). If they’re not hashing, they should really be rewriting their database anyway.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        I’d rather see a paper explaining the flaws with salted passwords rather than “just use this instead”.

        My initial reaction is that this overcomplicates things for the majority of use-cases, and has way more to configure correctly compared to something basic like a salted sha256/sha512 hash that you can write in any language’s standard library.

        If the database of everyone’s salted password hashes gets leaked, this still gives everyone plenty of time to change passwords before anything has a chance of cracking them. (Unless you’re about to drop some news on me about long time standard practices being fundamentally flawed)

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          Wut. Is the competition not enough data for you? This is how we got AES.

          Can you name a single popular language where Argon2 isn’t implemented in a stamdard library?

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            I think you’re missing the point of what I’m asking. In what way are regular salted passwords insecure? Sure you can keep adding extra steps to encryption, but at a certain point you’re just wasting CPU cycles.

            I have no doubts about Argon2 being secure, I just think the extra steps are unnecessary for anything I would build (i.e. not touching financial transactions or people’s SSNs). By design argon2 uses a lot of memory and CPU time to make bruteforce attacks much harder, but that’s more of a downside when you’re just doing basic account logins on a low end server.

            I’ll happily retract my point about external dependencies. It’s available in most languages, and notably std C++ contains neither argon2 or sha256/512 hashing, so that kind of makes my original point invalid anyway.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    29 days ago

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason to limit password length, is to save carrying cost on the database. But the only reason that this would be value added, is if the passwords are encrypted in reversible encryption, instead of hashed. Isn’t this against some CISA recommendation?

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      29 days ago

      One other reason I could see is pure idiocy. Like I’ve seen that there is a bias to using every feature some software has, and if a max limit can be set, it will be set, to a “reasonable” value.

    • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      There may also be a (very weak) reason around bounds checking and avoiding buffer overflows. By rejecting anything longer that 20 characters, the developer can be sure that there will be nothing longer sent to the back end code. While they should still be doing bounds checking in the rest of the code, if the team making the UI is not the same as the team making the back end code, the UI team may see it as a reasonable restriction to prevent a screw up, further down the stack, from being exploited. Again, it’s a very weak argument, but I can see such an argument being made in a large organization with lots of teams who don’t talk to each other. Or worse yet, different contractors standing up the front end and back end.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        They really shouldn’t be sending the password over the line at all. It should be local hashed/salted, encrypted, and then sent. So plaintext length really shouldn’t matter much, if at all. But I see your point.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    The 29 character length limit is so annoying because I once had 2 distinct passwords (not in use anymore) that were both coincidentally 21 characters long. Character limiting me by a single character at the end of those old passwords was annoying because I usually ended up, for some services I needed, having to change up and use a completely new password. Back when I was a lot worse about reusing passwords than now.

  • StorageAware@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    28 days ago

    I always get a chuckle when financial institutions have requirements like these, or lack 2FA. My Lemmy account has more security at this point.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      30 days ago

      Banks aren’t much better. Up until just a couple years ago, the Treasury Direct website (to buy bonds/etc from the US Treasury) forced you to use a god damned on-screen keyboard to input your password and the passwords were not case sensitive. I’m pretty sure it also only read the first X number of characters of your input because I recall that people tried typing extra characters after their passwords and it would still accept it as valid, though I could be conflating this with some other archaic site.

      • nocturne@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        You are unable to paste your password into the “confirm password” field. I thought I was going to have to type it in, but Bitwarden’s autofill worked.

  • js10@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    29 days ago

    I have seen this on a site before and I never understood why. Whats the point of limiting the length of the password? Its not to save storage space since the plain text isnt stored and the hash should be a uniform length. So whats the advantage?

    • digdilem@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      29 days ago

      since the plain text isnt stored

      I’m not sure I’d accept a bet on that assumption.

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      29 days ago

      Calculating hashes is supposedly more expensive for longer strings. That could be used to simplify some kind of overload attack like DDOS.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        29 days ago

        If they’re not already rate-limiting login attempts that’s another huge problem…

      • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        If they’re using md5 (which would be in line with their security practices), the block size is 512 bits. That means that everything less than 64 characters is the same cost

    • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      Their backend is really, REALLY garbage. Maybe it is some of that Microsoft trash that they snake oil’d into a lot of public offices and dumbass corpo managers, but whatever is running that site, has me concerned. You don’t do fucky things with passwords unless your backend is doing something really stupid.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    29 days ago

    I happened to freeze all my credit in the same weekend I switched car insurance so I don’t know who is to blame (my bet is on GEICO) but starting Monday I’ve been getting a bunch of spam calls and texts…

    Such scumbags… If it’s the credit agencies they caused the problem for me to be there and are now profiting off the “solution” and if it’s GEICO it’s probably worse since I’m already fucking paying them, but no they need more.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      Just a quick tip: I’ve had good luck getting insurance through a broker. I have cheaper insurance through some B2B place that doesn’t work directly with consumers with better coverage than if I went through some national brand that spends millions of dollars a month on advertising to consumers. The other benefit of a broker is now you have a third party who’s incentivized to not only find you the best deal but also someone you can get advice from during a claim should anything seem off to you.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    30 days ago

    Financial institution security is quite frankly a freaking joke. My bank only has the options for 11 character passwords at maximum. It’s like oh come on that is way too easy these days

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      Oh but wait! That non-customizable account number user ID that you have to wait for in the mail is definitely top notch security!

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      Honestly, that’s a sign to me that your bank doesn’t take cybersecurity seriously and would possibly consider switching. Mine has amazing security as well as fraud detection. Sometimes it’ll even send me a text to verify a purchase if their software thinks it’s weird I got across town too quickly, though that’s pretty rare so it isn’t overly aggressive/inconvenient.

      • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        In Germany at least, I hear that banks have weird law requirements for these weird security things, like photoTAN.

        I’d be much happier if they’d just let me do my usual setup with password, totp and my hardware token.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          In the US the FDIC sets security requirements for banks and audits annually, and they keeps raising requirements every year or so. At this point its just easier for a bank to invest in following current best practices and keep updating to the current best practices than to keep chasing every new finding on the FDIC audits each year

          Source: I worked in IT at a bank for a while

  • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    30 days ago

    the Ring app (I think) forced me to change my Wi-Fi password because I wasn’t allowed to use ampersands. according to support it’s because they “use ampersands in the code”

      • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        It deeply saddens me when people pay money for locked down hardware that’s not only designed to spy on them, but their family, friends, and neighbors as well. Ring, Amazon Echo, Google Home, that creepy Facebook robot screen…all insecure spyware.

      • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        yeah I only have a ring for my outdoor cameras. I was considering switching my indoor system yo ring as my alarm company keeps raising their prices but I’m not putting ring cameras inside my house. especially because the privacy shutters on them are manual