Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updated the Password Storage Cheatsheet #1057

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

suyash5053
Copy link
Contributor

This changes resloves #1043 by updating the Password Storage Cheatsheet.
Signed-off-by: Suyash Srivastava [email protected]

Copy link
Collaborator

@kwwall kwwall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 for leaving a reference, but this doesn't explain all of my concerns, albeit for a different PR. Rather than repeating the here, please see the comments I left at:
https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/pull/1055/files/79b0198fefd61097b86c6475190d3d75d022b861#r1067644067

That was for PR #1055 but the same changes were made there.

Given that fact that NIST specifies at different figures for privileged and non-privileged accounts, I think that should be noted here. Which is this for? Also, since these iteration counts are different from the various NIST documents, I think we need the significance of that explained. For example, some industry sectors in the USA (e.g., typically financial institutions and companies that do contract work for the US government) generally need to adhere to FIPS-140 compliance. See the relevant comments at https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/pull/1055/files#r1067641302 for that context.

@jmanico
Copy link
Member

jmanico commented Jan 23, 2023

Can you check this against the lint errors and the previous update to the CS?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants