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

Adjust message logged to Simple History about global lockout #141

Closed
TuringTux opened this issue Feb 6, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #143
Closed

Adjust message logged to Simple History about global lockout #141

TuringTux opened this issue Feb 6, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #143

Comments

@TuringTux
Copy link
Contributor

TuringTux commented Feb 6, 2024

Currently, Authorizer maintains not only a per-user failed login counter, but also a global failed login counter for all attempts to log in as users that don't exist12.

Whenever the global lockout is triggered, a message like this is logged to Simple History:

Authorizer lockout triggered for 10 minutes on user wwwadmin after the 104th invalid attempt.

However, this doesn't actually mean someone tried 104 passwords on wwwadmin, but just that someone tried 104 passwords on several users, all non-existing. I think the message could be reworded to make this more clear, e.g.:

Authorizer lockout triggered for 10 minutes on all non-existent usernames after the 104th invalid attempt (latest non-existent username: wwwadmin).

The reworded message could help in debugging tricky issues like #138.

Footnotes

  1. The reason for this is documented: If the plugin locked only existing user names, an attacker can find out if a user with a certain name exists by bombarding the page with invalid password attempts for that user. If the user gets locked, the attacker would have confirmed the user exists. Therefore, the plugin also counts login attempts for non-existent usernames.

  2. Furthermore, it also makes the plugin more robust and able to deal with complexities like these: https://github.com/uhm-coe/authorizer/issues/138#issuecomment-1930933507

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 a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant