Technology

59269 readers

4068 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

548

NIST proposes barring some of the most nonsensical password rules (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Amicitas@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

179 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here is the text of the NIST sp800-63b Digital Identity Guidelines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 85 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

the document is nearly impossible to read all the way through and just as hard to understand fully

It is a boring document but it not impossible to read through, nor understand. The is what compliances officer do. I have a (useless) cybersecurity degree and reading NIST publications is part of my lecture.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance

My argument is that if this document (and others) are requirements for companies shouldn't there also be a more approachable document for people to use?

Sure, have the jargon filled document that those in the know can access, but without an additional not so jargon-y document you've just added a barrier to change. Maybe just an abstract of the rule changes on the front page without the jargon?

I don't know, maybe it's not a big deal to compliance officers but just seems to me (someone that isn't a compliance officer) that obfuscating the required changes behind jargon and acronyms is going to slow adoption of the changes.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago

It needs to be specific to be clear for its purposes. You can express everything in simpler terms but then you risk leaving things out of definitions. It's basically legal speak.

Normally, you'd read the scope of such a document to see whether it fits your purpose, then cherry-pick the chapters necessary. If something's unclear, you can google pretty much everything.

Doing that a few times will make it infinitely easier! You especially get to understand those broad, inaccessible definitions a lot easier.

load more comments (6 replies)