Remove sleep() from the password modules #1848
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bytehead
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2020
fritzmg
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2020
ausi
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2020
Toflar
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2020
AlexejKossmann
pushed a commit
to AlexejKossmann/contao
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2021
Description ----------- Because 1. the effect is marginal and can even encourage timing attacks, 2. we already have real brute force protection for logins, 3. it will mislead people to believe that `sleep(2)` is an appropriate means to mitigate brute force attacks (see contao#1769), which it is definitely not! Commits ------- 1aaab19 Remove sleep() from the password modules
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Because
sleep(2)is an appropriate means to mitigate brute force attacks (see Prevent brute force in ModuleCloseAccount #1769), which it is definitely not!