When The Site Doesn't Allow Special Characters In The Password

Watching security teams cheer on script kiddies is the tech equivalent of playing with your food. These devs set up a fake database honeypot and are gleefully watching some poor soul try every SQL injection trick in the book. The would-be hacker is throwing everything at it - from basic quotes to that classic DROP DATABASE command - while the team's practically popping popcorn watching the logs. It's like setting up an elaborate mouse trap and then rooting for the mouse. "Almost got the DB name!" Yeah, and I'm almost a millionaire every payday.

The padlock is technically locked... if you ignore the fact that it's completely bypassing the actual mechanism. Just like your code that passes all tests while violating every principle in the documentation. Security through obscurity at its finest. The best part? You'll be the one on call when it inevitably breaks at 2am on a Saturday.

Look at that URL parameter: isGina=false . Some developer really said "let's just hardcode user identity in the query string" and called it a day. Security through obscurity at its finest! Next time Gina forgets her password, she just needs to hack the URL to isGina=true and boom—instant access. Who needs authentication when you can just tell the system who you are? Somewhere a security engineer is having a panic attack while the intern who wrote this is proudly adding "implemented user authentication system" to their resume.

When Google asks for a "strong password," and you take it literally with HTML tags. Technically correct—the best kind of correct. The password field contains <strong><h1>Password</h1></strong> which is indeed a very "strong" password according to HTML semantics. Security experts hate this one weird trick.

Oh, the sweet irony of privacy-conscious users accidentally nuking their own ability to use the internet. Someone disabled all cookies thinking they're outsmarting Big Tech, then calls support wondering why they can't stay logged in anywhere. The dev's initial reaction is pure comedic gold—"haha good joke mate"—because surely nobody would actually block ALL cookies and expect authentication to work, right? But then reality hits harder than a production bug at 5 PM on Friday. They actually did that. They really, genuinely blocked all cookies. Here's the thing: session management literally depends on cookies (or similar mechanisms) to remember who you are between requests. Without them, every page refresh is like meeting the server for the first time. It's like showing up to work every day and expecting your boss to remember you, except you're wearing a different disguise each time. Support tickets like these are why devs develop trust issues with user reports. "It's not working" suddenly becomes an archaeological expedition to discover what unholy configuration the user has conjured.

The most secure authentication method known to developers - a can with scissors jammed in it. Need to access your account? You'll need both the can AND the scissors! Security experts hate this one weird trick that somehow meets compliance requirements while being utterly useless. Just like how most corporate 2FA implementations feel when you're forced to type in a code that was texted to the same device you're already holding. Pure security theater at its finest!