General Discussions about LUGNET : Search Results: password


Administrative / General / Search Results: password

Results 341 – 360 of 524.

Search took 0.00 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		(canceled)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) a (...) I wouldn't. Look. I've read through the plan several times. There is nothing there that needs this insane level of protection. Nothing. Really. We are not talking missile lanuch codes here, people. Two levels of passwords is (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) I haven't posted with respect to this in a while, but I would like to say that if you use this current validator to validate what people can choose for passwords you might as well just not use it and keep sticking people with the ones you are (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		(canceled)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) You put more at risk than your own data or matters when you choose a sucky password. (Think about it.) (...) Increased probability of successful brute-force compromises. (...) Have I somehow given you the impression that that the only purpose (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) 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. Now, unlike government jackbootedness, we do as consumers have a choice not to use Lugnet... but what (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		(canceled)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) It was an accident and I would appreciate the first one being cancelled. There is a difference in phrasing of less than 1% between the first and second, but it's crucial. (...) I appreciate the support but I don't actually agree with John. At (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: Changing email address (was:Re: Znap popularity?)
(...) Just waiting for my LUGNET membership password in the mail packet.... (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:30:51 GMT "Richard Franks" <spontificus@yahoo.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)': (...) heh, my lugnet password came up weak (FAIL)... my personal password came up ok (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.169)

		Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
(...) In that case, you may as well not bother allowing us to change passwords since we can only change to one just as random and hard to remember, which will also go up on a yellow sticky on the monitor like the current one is... (if I worked in an (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !

password
(score: 0.169)

More: Next Page >>