To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 6431
6430  |  6432
Subject: 
Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:33:28 GMT
Viewed: 
7936 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:

> The point is that there are plenty of other pw's that people could come up
> with which aren't dangerous, but which are sufficiently random and perfectly
> memorable.

Maybe I'm just miffed because it failed *all* of the passwords I use? :) If I
did anything that even remotely required great security that would be a problem
I guess!


> > IMHO it is reasonable to impose a minimum limit of characters, impose an
> > alpha-numeric mix, maybe even make sure that it isn't just one word known
> > to a dictionary mixed with one number. But much more than that seems too
> > restrictive.
> 
> :) you and I both know that you're an extremely intelligent adult who has
> thought about these things and wouldn't pick something particularly risky

*mumble*mumble* Look over there - a MISB Galaxy Explorer!


> What of a 10-year-old kid (not that there's anything wrong
> with being a 10yo)?  Just because someone is a 10yo, should they should be
> given a break and allowed to pick a risky pw like "lego4me"?

It's not just children - there are lots of adults out there with even mild
learning difficulties that might find it hard to remember more randomised
passwords.


> On the flipside, if someone chooses a weak password and never writes it down
> and never tells it to anyone, but then someone halfway around the globe who
> has never met them suddenly guesses it through trial and error or a brute-
> force attack, the blame lies entirely with the system and not with the user.

Just out of curiousity - would LUGNET allow brute-force or trial and error
attacks? Something like sending an email warning after 3 fails, then locking
the account for 24 hours after 5 fails would somewhat negate the danger of
those types of attacks?



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
 
(...) Me too. I mean, I'm not miffed (I have *much* better things to get miffed about) but it did fail, without exception, every password I have ever used. (...) I do. And the things I apply them to have checks for weak passwds. I suspect that they (...) (27 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
  Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
 
(...) Are there any that it gave between 0% and 100% to? (i.e., not < 0% ?) (...) Eeek -- no! -- locking people out on a failed login attempt would certainly negate the danger of a brute-force of attack, but it would make an entirely new type of (...) (27 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
 
(...) It's perfectly content to "pass" most 6- to 8- character pw's constructed by the first letter of successive words, especially if the pw includes a digit, a capital letter, or a special character. Those types of things tend to be "random" from (...) (27 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)  

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR