Profiling password.mangling

[stuartpb]

I've been using password.classes.required[0].classes[0]: nonspaces for a while to represent sites that reject passwords with spaces in them, but the truth is, many to most sites are probably just mangling passwords by trimming them (the test: if it rejects eight spaces, does it reject seven spaces and an a?)

Consequently, you can do this test in password input, too.

I'm not sure how extensively I've tested this, but FluxBB definitely does trimming on all its password fields.

[stuartpb]

I was thinking this'd be password.mangling: [trim] (with maybe value or contents jammed in there), but now that I think about it, this should really be a property of form('s child fields), or at least a sibling of it, since there are definitely sites out there that mangle one but not the other.

[stuartpb]

Also, I try not to be judgmental in field names, but seriously, if you modify a password value in any way, it's mangling. If a crypt function truncates a key, it's objectively mangling it - the same criteria applies for passwords.

[stuartpb]

Better: make it a mangle object, with trim being an enum of start, end, or (most likely) both.

This also opens the door for, say, mangle.truncate.

[stuartpb]

Maybe munge, or alter.

[stuartpb]

As much as I want to have this documented (I LOVE the idea of profiling truncation as a separate issue from maximum length), it needs some more discussion before it gets integrated.

The biggest unanswered question for me right now is "what about when not all parts of the site mangle passwords the same way?" That's a hard thing to keep track of, testing-wise, but it's still a salient issue - if only registration or only settings or only reset trim my password value, then I'm going to end up broken if I treat it as trimmed and it was entered through one of the other paths.

[stuartpb]

I'm thinking about having a transformations object (list?) that can apply to password as well as any form field that might have further transformations, but... egh.

Maybe password.value just needs trim.space and truncated.length as fields directly, and then this kind of inconsistency can be attached as caveats?

[stuartpb]

Also, re: #233 (comment) - after noticing that Google disallows spaces on the ends of passwords (probably trimming on inputs for login), I'm thinking that maybe trimming isn't evil - or at least, not when combined with measures so that this is never silently mutating the password the user wanted to use (as #251 may document). I could see a user copy-pasting a password from some email, not noticing they highlighted a space, then wondering why login mysteriously isn't working.

[stuartpb]

Truncation is definitely wrong, though. If you don't want to work with passwords past a certain length, just call it the maximum length, don't silently drop parts.