 | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) How about some of the following? They seem topically weak to me. lg*mnfg - 389% excellent shp@hm8354386 - 236% great m:trn6989 - 272% great Steve (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | (...) I got a 421%, and then a -125%. Very interesting, i might have to switch some of my passwords here now! :) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Not sure how to detect this...it isn't that terrible anyway, is it? (I can see that it comes from "lego*minifig" but it's still probably strong enough?) (...) Now gives a -1030%. (...) Now gives a 200%. If LEGO sets weren't an issue it would (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | It really likes: fnark-5- (345%) but hates: fnark-5-lego (-104%) Surely that's squiffy? Or is it based on the theory that being able to guess the 'lego' part will make the 'fnark-5-' more obvious? Richard (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It's a side-effect of downrating fluffy portions even though they don't hurt. That is, if you have a wicked strong 8-character pw (call it "X" for short), then even though "Xlego" is no worse than "X", it takes points off for the fluffy part (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I am starting to think that this password checker, in its current form (which I'd like to see left accessable as it IS useful) shouldn't actually block a password. It should tell me that "maybe this isn't a good choice" but it doesn't know (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Yum, yum! :-s Well, ya gotta also figure that decreasing the safety margin from 100,000 to 1000 is one thing (bad -- and I don't think that's case here), but decreasing it from, say, eleventeen hundred quintrillion down to fifty-seven (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm not a guru on the subject by any means, but while an attacker using wordlists and trying to crack a password with bruteforce or something like, I mean, by trial and error, I think any combination of dates are (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) from (...) ALL (...) that (...) numbers (...) This was a hypothetical example. Dates are not actually good passwords, but they're easy to use to demonstrate differences in context. my birthday is a bad password for me (one of the first few (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
