Subject:
|
Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:48:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDM.antispamORG
|
Viewed:
|
3312 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> But the validator doesn't find non-sucky passwords, it just finds the least
> randomised - ie, it will pass something like:
> 4h(i,>$s& but fail:
> 4h(i,>$s&-fun
It's finding _more_ random passwords in a technical sense of "random". (More
random = containing no sequences. Or more accurately, no part of the number
follows from any other part.)
I agree that the super-cool validator may be overkill for the current state
of LUGnet -- there's no money or credit card information involved. However,
it may be quite reasonable for the future.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
