To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 5785
5784  |  5786
Subject: 
Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:33:13 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
3811 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
Have you thought about vowels being dropped and K/c substitutions.
Good idea!

Hmmm...not sure how to go about doing this...  The way the checker achieves
its speed is by looking up all substrings in its dictionary rather than
passing every single diciontionary word over all substrings (which could take
hours).  So, for example, in order to find a match on something like "lgsstm"
("lego system" minus vowels), it would either have to know exactly which
letters you dropped (in which case the lookup would be speedy) or it would
have to examine millions of permutations of each vowel in each position (in
which case it would be excruciatingly slow) and it might even find whole
bunches of unwanted matches -- for example "leagues steamy" matching
"lgsstm" when all you meant was "lego system", or "mound mayor angie" or
"money dime ring" matching "mndmrng" when all you meant was "mondaymorning".

I don't mean to say it's not a good idea to check (I think it is a good idea,
just as a diagnostic for people) -- I just don't know how to do it quickly
and efficiently without some really big iron.

--Todd

The way I've done something similar in the past is to create a larger
dictionary: create a temp file with all words having their vowels removed, and
do the c/k mutations too, if desired.  Sort and remove duplicate entries.
Finally, merge back into the original dictionary.  This makes the dictionary
much larger, of course.  I wasn't using one as large as yours already seems to
be, but it might still work.

If the size gets too unweildly, an alternative might be to just use the temp
file you created above AS the dictionary.  Preprocess the submitted passwords
to remove vowels from them as well.  It doesn't matter that there are dozens
or more possible ways that a word with its vowels removed could have come
from.  Any word that would have been rejected would still be rejected, but
soom otherwise 'good' words will now also be tagged as bad.  Eg: reversing the
vowels on a word might have been a good password before, but is useless
now.  "Airuke" vs "Eurika" -- both become simply 'rk', illustrating what looks
to be a possible flaw: the passwords look shorter.  Though this isn't really a
problem, since the user still needs to type all the letters anyway.  What this
lacks is a simple way of telling the user which words his password choice
collided with.  Not a big deal, IMO.

Actually I assume you already do *something* like this: do you reduce all
passwords to lower case, and have your dictionary in all lower case?  This
would make sense to do.  Is a word with random caPitAliZatiON that much more
secure than the same word in one of the three 'normal' senses?  (Capitalized,
capitalized, CAPITALIZED)

In any case, the idea is to find passwords that aren't good.  The explanations
of why they aren't is secondary.

--
  David Schilling



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) OK, so work it backwards, IOW. Cool. That sounds doable, and wouldn't even increase the time it took to evaluate pw's by more than the tiniest percent. (...) Well, if the dictionary grows from 2.7 million to 3.5 million entries, that's OK -- (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)  

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) Hmmm...not sure how to go about doing this... The way the checker achieves its speed is by looking up all substrings in its dictionary rather than passing every single diciontionary word over all substrings (which could take hours). So, for (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) ! 

309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR