Hashing the hash may be vastly preferable to management nixing the security upgrade.
- Svensk sexdating
- datingnet ru
- single dubai dating
- vandals internet dating
- 100 free xxx dating sites no cretid card ever
- America reallifecam
- emo dating sim
See also this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item? But there are legitimate situations where upgrading the password backing to a modern slow hash is preferable to continuing to use the old hash or worse storing the old hash as a field for a long time so that when a breach happens both the new and old hashes are available.
There are user experience battles when talking about forcing a million users to change their passwords in a real system.
Otherwise you're clipping your bcrypt input from "56 arbitrary bytes" down to "56 hexadecimal characters".
I haven't looked deeply at this, but using "key stretching" that clips your output characters to such a small space smells very suspect to me.
Give someone a text box and watch them try to stuff 4GB of content in it.
There has to be a cutoff somewhere, but as you note, it should be well outside of the realm of reasonable password lengths (hundreds of characters).Won't do much; AFAIK everything is encrypted client-side with your master password.So a hacker could, in theory, get my encrypted database, but by the time they crack my strong password, I will, at the very least, have changed all those passwords.just making a joke.)Last time I tried changing my Yahoo password it took me days before it accepted something (and I had password generator scripts and my brain).Now it's back to something along the lines of `letmein`.By the time a best practice is well known, it's no longer best practice. The implication seems to be that we're not iterating fast enough, or not sufficiently fast in implementing changes/improvements.