Subject:
|
Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:56:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3253 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Draconian and rather big-parentish. Why can't I take the risk of a sucky
> password if I so choose? Not that I personally would, mind you.
You put more at risk than your own data or matters when you choose a sucky
password. (Think about it.)
> Now, unlike government jackbootedness, we do as consumers have a choice not
> to use Lugnet... but what exactly is the harm of allowing sucky passwords?
Increased probability of successful brute-force compromises.
> It falls entirely or for the most part on the person who made the poor
> choice. Why be their daddy?
Have I somehow given you the impression that that the only purpose of the
validator is to protect data?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
