Well, a little nit I have to pick with chip manufacturers. On this occasion, it’s with ST, but they all do it, Freescale, TI, Atmel…
I’m talking about the assumptions they make about who uses their site.
Yes, I work as a “systems engineer” (really, programmer and network administrator, my role is more IT than Engineering). However, when I’m looking at chip designs and application notes, that is usually in my recreation.
This morning, I had occasion to ask ST a question about one of their application notes. Specifically AN3969, which deals with emulating an EEPROM using the in-built flash on a STM32F4 microcontroller. Their “license” states:
License The enclosed firmware and all the related documentation are not covered by a License Agreement, if you need such License you can contact your local STMicroelectronics office. THE PRESENT FIRMWARE WHICH IS FOR GUIDANCE ONLY AIMS AT PROVIDING CUSTOMERS WITH CODING INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR PRODUCTS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SAVE TIME. AS A RESULT, STMICROELECTRONICS SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CONTENT OF SUCH FIRMWARE AND/OR THE USE MADE BY CUSTOMERS OF THE CODING INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PRODUCTS.
Hmm, not licensed, but under a heading called “license”. Does that mean it’s public domain? Probably not. Do I treat this like MIT/BSD license? I’m looking to embed this into LGPLed firmware that will be publicly distributed: I really need an answer to this. So over to the ST website I trundle.
I did have an account, but couldn’t think of the password. They’ve revamped their site and I also have a new email address, so I figure, time for a new account. I click their register link, and get this form:
Now, here’s where I have a gripe. Why do they always assume I am doing this for work purposes? This is something pretty much all the manufacturers do. The assumption is WRONG. My account on their website has absolutely nothing to do with my employer. I am doing this for recreation! Therefore, should not, mention them in any way.
Yet, they’re mandatory fields. I guess ST get a lot of employees of the “individual – not a company” company.
I filled out the form, got an email with a confirmation link which I click, and now this is something a lot of companies, not just chip makers, get wrong. Apart from the “wish it was” two factor (you can tell my answer was bogus), they dictate some minimum requirements, but then enforce undisclosed maximum requirements on the password.
WTF? “Special” characters? You mean like printable-ASCII characters? Or did a vertical tab slip in there somehow? Password security, done properly, should not care how long, or how complex you choose to make your password: so long as it meets a minimum standard. A maximum length in the order of 64 bytes or more might be reasonable, as might be a restriction to what can be typed on a “standard” US-style keyboard layout may be understandable.
In this case, the password had some punctuation characters. Apparently these are “special”. If they restrict them because of possible SQL injection, then I’m afraid ST, you are doing it wrong! A base64 or hex encoded hash from something like bcrypt, PKCS12 or the like, should make such things impossible.
Obviously preventing abuse by preventing someone from using the dd-dump of a full-length Blu-ray movie as a password is perfectly acceptable, but once hashed, all passwords will be the same size and will contain no “special” characters that could upset middleware.
Sure, enforce a large maximum length (not 20 characters like eBay, but closer to 100) so that any reasonably long password won’t overflow a buffer. Sure, enforce that some mixed character classes be used. But don’t go telling people off for using a properly secure password!