[sillysaurus3]

Malpractice? Someone using SHA-1 for password storage wouldn't even be a medium severity issue on a modern pentest.

I agree with you, but it was very strange to discover that password storage is basically ignored in pentests. Especially after years of you drumming it up as a big deal.

[tptacek]

Using SHA-1 for password storage would be sev:low in a pentest. There are a lot of other sev:low things that you would certainly agree are signs of incompetence. Unsoundness of engineering and vulnerability impact are almost orthogonal.

[sillysaurus3]

The issue is that companies can basically ignore sev:low findings. "Malpractice" implies that they need to care; they do not.

I wish they did. It would be nice if they were forced to care. But it wouldn't block them from being declared secure by a pentest. Low-severity findings are findings, yes, but they don't have the same pull as medium or high severity vulns.

All of this is true for storing passwords in plaintext, too. If some company leaked plaintext passwords, people would be outraged. Yet pentests would still give that company a pass, because plaintext password storage is sev:low.

[tptacek]

I understand what you're saying, but second-order findings on pentests don't get high severity, no matter how important a sign of unsoundness they are. Severity and importance are also somewhat orthogonal.