One of the scourges of corporate life was the forced monthly password change. As anyone who understands security will know, this was always a terrible idea - it leads to a culture of passwords that are weak, formulaic, and written down.
Another, more widespread scourge, is the use of devious complexity requirements.
Fortunately, the world is changing.
The NCSC called for people to update their approach to passwords.
The NIST Special Publication 800-63 on Digital Identity explicitly covers the fact that forced password changes and complexity rules shouldn't be applied. They call out the problems of bad policy - human behaviour is predictable in the face of stupid rules.
Even OWASP have got in on the act.
I think it's pretty clear that forced password changes and complexity rules are on the way out.
This is reinforced by the fact that the current UK Cyber Essentials certification requires you to follow the NCSC guidance. (Go to the Resources tab, and download the "Cyber Essentials Requirements for IT infrastructure".) Under User Access Control, it's pretty explicit - no password expiry, no password complexity requirements. Given that you need to have CE or equivalent to get UK government or NHS contracts now, this is a pretty big stick.
There's also a general push towards MFA to be used in concert with passwords.
There's another interesting question: how long do passwords need to be?
If you want to be really scared, look at the Hive Systems Password Table. You've probably seen this floating around recently. Almost all regular passwords can be trivially brute forced. If people have rainbow tables, game over.
Only it's not quite that simple. Both NIST and NCSC talk about minimum 8 characters. How is that possibly secure?
The point is that there's a huge gulf between running an optimised cracker on a GPU (incredibly quick), and trying to put a long list of passwords into a website or application. The former is 10s of billions of hashes per second; the latter is 10s of attempts per second. You're looking at a factor of a billion difference between the two attack vectors. And if you follow the recommendations for throttling and lockout, in reality an attacker will get a handful of attempts at most. If you look at the NIST guidance, it wants 8 characters for user-generated passwords, and only 6 passwords for random machine-generated passwords.
In practice, for most decent algorithms, rainbow tables normally only go up to 14-16 characters or so. But this means two things. First, that the ease of brute force and rainbow table attacks is such that you absolutely must keep the encrypted passwords protected, and assume that knowledge of the encrypted password means that the password is compromised. And second, that there's actually no benefit to a minimum password length between 8 and 16. You should allow longer (much longer) but the current attack vectors can either be met with 8 or require more than 16.
Happy passwording!
