 | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I think that's unwise (to _force_ people to use an acknowledged pw). Two reasons: - one cannot choose a password that is easy to remember --> it will be written down in some easy accessible place. - by (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Can't or won't? (...) I don't believe that's the case. (URL) - the refutation of a password makes the customer irritated, especially if (...) I may have to make a short FAQ page. (...) SW:Ep1 M:Tron6989 70'sLEGO 2*4Brick Pi3.14159 12:34Sunday (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Oops, almost forgot to list the classic counterexample! E=mc^2 That uses a mix of... * At least one uppercase letter from A-Z * At least one lowercase letter from a-z * At least one numeric digit from 0-9 * At least one "special" character (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I'm not sure what you're asking here... What I tried to say was: If I have to construct a (for me) strange password, 'just to please the system' (that's how most users see it, at least), the probability of (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) oh, sorry. I was asking if you meant that people (a) actually wouldn't be _able_ to choose a password that was easy for them to remember or (b) actually could but wouldn't bother trying to come up with one that was easy for them to remember. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) but not all. I don't. (...) I doubt most people that write down passwords apply any of these cyphers to them but I am just speculating on this particular point. (...) Fascinating... can you provide a reference for this assertion, or is it just (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —John Matthews
|
| | | | | | | From the last two posts, I think I have arrived at my own conclusion on this matter. Todd wants to protect his hard earned work by issuing complicated passwords that theoretically cannot be hacked. I can't blame Todd for this notion, it seems to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful comments, John! It's really not as complicated as it may seem. There is a simple pw tester, it does a reasonable job of identifying weaknesses in pw's, and it outputs a number in a range. It fails (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | This is an interesting subject. However, I only know one person who keeps a written note of his password/ATM number etc. The only reason he does this is because he is dyslexic. Despite that, I'm sure that as more and more web services now ask for (...) (25 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) NONE of those are bad passwords for the level of security that LUGNET, now, or ever, (2) will require. To think differently implies that either there is something far far deeper and earth shatteringly important about to happen at some point (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | |
