Subject:
|
Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:27:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3922 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message ...
>
> Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > > I don't know if this really is a bad password, but I
> > > > couldn't resist trying it:
> > > >
> > > > 2x4=3001
> > > >
> > > > Another lost password choosing algorithm :-(
> > >
> > > Ooh -- I'd better make sure that it dislikes [0-9]+[xX][0-9]+ and • [0-9]{4} .
> >
> > OK, try that again now. Seeing that this site is LEGO-related, it's best • to
> > treat "x" and "X" as part of numeric stuff. In fact there are many other
> > things besides 'x' and '=' which are numeric-related. :-o
> >
> > It now very much dislikes numerical and/or mathematical substrings (the • longer
> > the worse) consisting of two or more of the following characters:
> >
> > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : . , + - * / x X # % < = > $ ¢ £ ¤ ¥
>
>
> Waahh, now it hates one of my passwords...
>
> Hm, would you consider parametizing some of the things (or is the code
> something easily portable)? I'd like to check passwords for all sorts of
> things, and the bias against numeric equations may not always be • appropriate
> (the password that just went from good to bad was not at all intended to be
> an equation, it just happens to have an x between two numbers).
Thought of another reason to allow parameters or options to the checker...
Some systems have restrictions on length of password, some systems are not
case sensitive, some systems may not allow non-alpha-numeric characters, and
some systems may have requirements of having numeric and alpha in certain
positions or not in certain positions.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
