Subject:
|
Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:55:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> 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.)
Yup - you're right - my squiff (I meant *more*) :)
> 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.
I'd be happy with a user-responsible password for membership logins (ie 90% of
membership use including posting privilidges), but with authorisation through a
LUGNET-validated password for more intimate services (ie financial). I think
Todd suggested that 2-tier password scheme already?
Richard
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: PW validation
|
| (...) Ya, sorta... But not so much two different states of logins as two tiers of passwords which would both be required (only if you wanted it that way) before you'd be considered actually logged in. In other words, you could give two passwords (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
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
|
|
|
|
