this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
792 points (95.8% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

39691 readers
1226 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.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In password security, the longer the better. With a password manager, using more than 24 characters is simple. Unless, of course, the secure password is not accepted due to its length. (In this case, through STOVE.)

Possibly indicating cleartext storage of a limited field (which is an absolute no-go), or suboptimal or lacking security practices.

(page 6) 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

YES, it pisses me off so much. Though I do kind see for some things having some upper limit of 256 for certain services. But I may be wrong in thinking that.

For example I want a secure bank password but I only need it so long. Mainly because unlike my E2EE service if they are servered a warrant or hacked through another service all my data is there. Basically I can only do so much.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

At one point years ago my work finally caught up with the 21st century and allowed creation of passwords longer than the fixed 8 characters it had always been. So I said great, made up something that was around 12 or so that I could remember. Until I logged into some terminal legacy programs we were still using and wouldn't take that length. So yeah, I went back to 8 characters that wouldn't break things. They eventually migrated away from such old programs and longer passwords became mandatory since they'd work everywhere, but I thought it was funny that briefly I tried to do the right thing but IT hadn't thought out the whole picture yet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

There's a joke in there somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey at least it told you there maximum length, i signed up paramount+ last night and it only said 42 characters was too long.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I also hate these kind of websites.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

My best experience... They allowed me to set a 100 characters password, but then changed the limits a year later, so that you couldn't even login anymore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You think that's infuriating? Imagine having an ISP that wants you to pick a password of max 8 characters.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There was a game launcher for a popular game that required a minimum of 8 characters but only used the first 8 characters and it wasn't case sensitive. So something like PassWord12345!? could be entered when changing the password, but you could sign in with any of the following:

  • password1234
  • PassWord123499(#$%
  • Password12345!?
  • passWord12345!
  • pASSword12345?!
  • PassWord123499(#$%
  • password

I haven't logged in for years so I'm not sure if it is still working that way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Sounds like they're using bcrypt. Feeding more than 24 utf8 characters into bcrypt won't do anything useful. You can permit longer passwords (many sites do) but they'd be providing a false sense of security.

Bcrypt is still secure enough and 24 characters are fine as long as they're randomly generated by your password manager.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It can also be just a randomly chosen limit. I work as a software engineer on a custom management software for a big client. For whatever reason until recently, the limit for email addresses in the master data was 50 character. Why? No clue but someone had decided that randomly in the past. Now it was increased to 100. Why again? According to RFC 5321 a limit of 254 would be the most sensible one. But the people who come up with those requirements just don't care. They decided it to be 100 from now on for no apparent reason.

Then we have many input fields, that have a limit of 255 character. Why not 256? Why such a weird number in general? The people who use this software in production are most likely not the ones who usually think in powers of two. So why not make it 250 or 300 oder whatever?

Sometimes those limits are just arbitrary with no technical or logical reason to back them up. Which doesn't make it less stupid mind you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

a limit of 255 character. Why not 256? Why such a weird number in general?

255 chars + '\0' = 256

Not weird at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I see your point, but we have Java backends and strings there are not null terminated. Also I'm very sure that those would never be the reason for our Postgres server to run out of storage so I don't get it why not make it more user friendly. We're not implenting an embedded system where every byte of storage counts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Agree, I was just commenting on why 255 in itself isn't "weird". I find myself doing comparisons of the "value == variable" type even in languages where you cannot assign by mistake. Some of us old farts code from muscle memory ... :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Used to run into this more. Some legacy systems imposed password limits that seem archaic by modern standards. The authentication system was just supporting systems from before newer standards were created.

I think some of those compatibility layers outlived the systems they needed to be compatible with. The people that knew the system retired ages ago and the documentation was lost 3 or 4 "documentation system" changes ago.

Anyway, those have no place on the modern web.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›