this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
463 points (95.5% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35495 readers
627 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Just take the string as bytes and hash it ffs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 17 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I sort of get it. You don’t want to allow the entire work of Shakespeare in the text field, even if your database can handle it.

You don't store the original text. You store the hash of it. If you SHA512 it, anything that's ever given in the password field will always be 64Bytes.

The only "legit" reason to restrict input to 16 character is if you're using an encryption mechanism that just doesn't support more characters as an input. However, if that's the case, that's a site I wouldn't want to use to begin with if at all possible.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The resulting hash will always be the same size, but you don't want to have an unlimited upper bound otherwise I'm using a 25GB blueray rip as my password and your service is going to have to calculate the hash of that whenever I login.

Sensible upper bounds are a must to provide a reliable service not open to DDOS exploits.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Sensible upper bounds are a must to provide a reliable service not open to DDOS exploits.

If I choose to make you hash it in browser first... Then I simply don't care do I? I can hash/salt again when I get your hash. Edit: There are other answers to the "DDOS problem" that don't require upper bounds.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You can make a client hash it, but if you don't reject large inputs to your API a client can send enough data to DOS you anyway.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And a meteor can hit my server the exact time you send your hash which will DOS you/others as well. What's your point.

The thread is talking about what it takes to store passwords. There is not DOS potential in a well designed system. Just because you want to arbitrarily conjure up bullshit doesn't make that any less true.

Rejecting large inputs != disallowing users to have large passwords. Why are you attempting to straw-man me here?

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You were saying the input size doesn't matter because you only store the hash which is always the same size. What I'm saying is that the input size really does matter.

You absolutely should set upper limits on all input fields because it will be abused if you don't. Systems should validate their inputs, passwords included

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 2 months ago

And I showed you a way that we can make it so it doesn't matter.

Force local hash -> Hash/salt what you get. Password can be a million characters long. You'll only ever get like 128 characters.

Nothing I talked about said to not validate inputs. Just that we don't have to limit a persons password selection.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)