this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Cybersecurity
10644 readers
1 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
MONTH??
That was the recommendation for years.
It was commonly 90 days for regular user accounts, and 30 days for admin/privileged accounts.
with automated password rotation, and no api access (no permission to use api access, that is) to the keyvault. And they expected us to automate stuff too!
I had companies where it was monthly. suxed
ThisPasswordisforJANUARY1stMonth!
It's monthly at my company. Combined with other complexity requirements, it's pushed everyone into such predictable patterns that I could probably guess my way into any manager's PC in probably a few minutes.
Also, there's no lockdown after X attempts. I can try infinitely, as far as I'm aware.
Eh, AFAIK that's not a best practice anyway, at least not any low number. From what I recall, the recommendation is to either have a high number of attempts that causes a lockout (50+?) or high-priority alerts when a large number of invalid attempts is detected. One of the problems with lockouts based on X attempts, especially low numbers like you often see, at least in my mind, is that it opens people up to a denial of service attack. Let's say that all account names are predictable, like first initial and last name. A rogue user could lock out anyone they wanted to with that knowledge. What if they know or can easily predict the usernames for all admins or IT people in the organization and they lock them all out?
Typically you want to do the lockout for a location, not the user, or you step up the auth level. 3 bad logins -> please mfa before trying again.
But yeah, letting an attacker do that at will is bad. I'm a fan of token bucket rate limiting with exponential back off. You get 10 attempts. A new attempt is added every second. An attempt while the bucket is empty makes that become two, then four and so on.
Most people never notice because a buffer of ten and a new attempt every second just never runs out. If you accidentally hold down enter you're only blocked for a few moments. A dumb attacker quickly locks themselves out forever.
Our organization got hacked and there was about a year after where CISO had us changing passwords every two weeks.