Just take the string as bytes and hash it ffs

  • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    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.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        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

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days 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.