Apple releases open source 'Password Manager Resources' project for developers
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
Seems like a good idea, instead of every password manager trying to re-implement the same kind of edge cases. One day I hope we can just "muss change" password because sites follow a common theme like https://wicg.github.io/change-password-url/index.html - but maybe we have a better strategy than passwords until then.
Of the documented rules only minimum password length is even an excusable rule. Should your site accept 40kB passwords? No, but that's not a "maximum password length" rule at that point it's just common sense about unauthenticated payload sizes. Whereas this list includes limits of just eight characters and in one case simply 4 digits.
The other restrictions - required or prohibited characters - and the shared credential quirk (systems that let you, indeed often require you to use the same credentials but on different FQDNs) are both making users less safe. While there's an argument that just documenting them is neutral I'd argue that for an outfit with Apple's clout it isn't enough and they need to be loudly calling for reform.
That's tempered by the knowledge that Apple has never been very good at doing more than one thing. "Password stores" are definitely not the new iPhone, and so they can't pivot their whole company to this problem, and maybe in the absence of that level of focus this is all they can offer, but that's kind of a shame on its own.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/secre...
Fun fact: bcrypt, still quite popular, has an inherent password length limit. Everything beyond a certain point (56 bytes) is just ignored. It's possible to work around, but that's messy and you're no longer do "the" bcrypt, bye bye interoperability. And if you don't enforce it, someone might do something silly-but-apparently-harmless, like reuse a long passphrase with some randomness at the end. Edge case, but not impossible. Of course in 2020 you probably should be using things like Argon or something (actually haven't researched the current best in a couple of years, so no longer sure)., but AFAIR Rails, for example, still comes with just bcrypt by default.
And even that is twice as much as would ever seem necessary.
Seriously though, I like obnoxiously long passwords because it clues me in to who is storing my password in a manner than can be reverted to plain text if not in plaintext directly. If you're using a salted hash to store my password it shouldn't make a difference whether my password is "HN/2020/Jun!" or the full text of War and Peace -- just the hash will be stored. Anyone who tells me my password is too long makes me nervous because they are doing something different.
And of course I'm a little paranoid: how many breach datasets are your credentials in?
Password for a streaming service that you want to use on your smart TV/Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV/Cable box.
Ideally, they provide some way so you do not have to type your password using a crappy onscreen keyboard and the up/down/left/right/enter keys on your remote. For example, I've seen some that tell you a simple URL (https://<comany_name>/add_device, say) and show you numeric code. You go to that site on your computer, log in to your account, and then enter the code from your device. Your password manager deals with the password.
Sadly, some do not do this, and you find yourself entering your password via the remote and on screen keyboard. Every time your password has a change between {upper case letter, lower case letter, number, punctuation} you have to navigate to some kind of shift key and hit it.
I do not want to try to enter some password like "sW3/W4Bmbx=Md%" that way.
An alternative might be a password that consists of 4 groups of 16 lower case letters, with no duplicate letters within a group, with the first and third groups sorted so the letters are encountered in this order: qwertyuioplkjhgfdsazxcvbnm [1]. The second and fourth groups are sorted using the reverse of that order.
That gives you a 64 character all lower case letter password that can be entered by starting at 'q' and then scanning across the keyboard back and forth, row by row, hitting enter when you come to the characters that are part of the password. It has about the same entropy as "sW3/W4Bmbx=Md%" but might be less frustrating to type. Most of the time entering it you are only having to deal with two remote keys. The arrow for the direction of your scan on the current keyboard row and enter, with just an occasional up/down to move between rows.
(If it is a smart TV or cable box, there is a decent chance the remote includes a numeric keypad. In that case I'd consider a 27 character all digit password, if I wanted something with about the same entropy as "sW3/W4Bmbx=Md%").
[1] assuming the on screen keyboard is QWERTY. Some use alphabetical order.
Banks are the worst offenders, but it isn't limited to that. Any site that thinks it is "special" and requires "extra security" targets password managers for reasons unknown.
The issue is it does not stay in sync, if I use my windows machine and update a password there I would have to re-import where as a password manager (and/or its extension) would just stay synced.
Beside Firefox now provide it's own password manager. But it is awkwardly limited within the browser.
Same with the recently touted picture in picture mode of Firefox. While I understand it might be enjoyable on OS that don't support that natively it's particularly laughable on OS that does it. Now You potentially have 3 layers of picture in picture implementation. The website, the browser and the OS... (And as you might guess the OS offer the best experience because it have control over all graphical layers).
Apple cripples third party password managers on purpose. Pointing at Apple's worse product, a product that only works within their confined ecosystem, while claiming it is better than it was isn't a retort, it is a polite middle finger.
On that note, I recently set up a new iPhone & Watch. I had to enter my Apple Password six separate times, and 2F twice. And not once was my password manager allowed to populate it, even though it is saved in there.
Sure, I could use Keychain, but it lacks common & basic features and doesn't work on PCs, non-Apple mobile devices, or on the web. Maybe if Apple competed fairly on quality rather than abusing their anti-competitive silo(s), they'd have a better password manager.
Dear Apple, just let me use authy or a hardware token instead of your proprietary bullshit.
Apple is a trillion dollar company because they make their users happy enough. Perfect security is not necessarily the best security posture; usability is still a concern.
If this is fine with Apple, ok. Why are they pushing apple school manager on me though? Why do I have to provide a cell number for an apple id to sync backups? Why are ASM accounts unable to install apps from the app store unless you assign them from a central app store profile? Why do ASM accounts not work for iMessage? Why do ASM accounts not work for iCloud backups?
It's not about usability, it is about locking people in.
1. On the signup page select either the username/email or password text box
2. Press the key icon.
3. Select add in whatever password manager you use (I use Bitwarden)
4. Generate a password, etc. then hit save
5. Select it and it will autofill and add any extra stuff in the sign up form
That is how I have done it in the past (maybe not exactly like that, as I said this is from memory) and it has worked well enough. Not a great user experience though to be fair.
Make sure it's enabled and uncheck "iCloud Keychain" while leaving "1Password" checked. It'll basically make it your default password manager.
Most apps that I use handle this well. Some (E-trade) don't seem to have the implementation quite right.
Not that it would be a joke if an individual developer released it, and built an active community who contributed, or if it was more than 100 websites long.
But the heavy publicity push seems a bit early. And, it feels like Apple’s announcement is little more than “hey guys, check out this POC repo!”.
It kinda feels like Apple doesn’t get OSS.
I doubt the PR department is pushing out a footnote on the developer portal to a bunch of Mac rumor blogs.
MacRumors and AppleInsiders both don't have the article.
You're hating on it for being from Apple? That makes as much sense as loving it because it's from Apple.
Perhaps they truly don't have more information and released everything they have – and this is a "what if we were to come together".
But it doesn't feel immediately useful, and so I'm reluctant to believe that companies will bidirectionally contribute to this.
It may or may not be useful to anyone, I have no idea. But to characterize this as a "heavy publicity push" doesn't make sense. It's not a push, there's no publicity, and there's nothing heavy about it.