|
Top-level
 @maxleibman In a similar vain. Had a lock screen pin with 9 digits on my work-supplied Android. Outlook on that phone demanded a safer pin for the device, the last 4 digits were descending. Apparently a big no-no. Tried only the first four digits of that same pin, it worked. Now my work phone only has a 4 digit pin because modern big-corpo digital security is a circus show. 2 comments
@maxleibman When people busy themselves writing "guidelines" instead of, gee, making this stuff secure and convenient on a factual basis. <Insert Password XKCD here> My workplaces larger overlord org still uses the abysmal "Use a new password every X months" rule despite all IT's petitions and recommendations of MS and standardisation bodies against it. Ticking checkboxes instead of making an actual effort always rubs me wrong. |
Gregory's Server
@DaCool I was actually thinking about the PIN rules for our MDM when I thought of the faces joke. We have a similar rule—a six-digit PIN is required, but you can't have three or more consecutive ascending or descending digits. (And not just sequential—"981" would trip the rule.)
No, despite how often I invoke the hashtag, I am not an #infosec professional, but: if you are constrained to a universe of only a million possible PINs, why eliminate tens (hundreds?) of thousands of possibilities?