General Discussions about LUGNET : Search Results: password


Administrative / General / Search Results: password

Results 41 – 60 of about 520.

Search took 0.00 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) Okay, what is left?? I am wondering what kind of imagination I will need to generate an acceptable password. So far I have had no problem generating passwords that exceed 300% acceptance, but if the acceptable parameters continue to become (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Member Password Center
I dug out my original password, it was a miracle I found it, actually, and spent a little time playing with this: (URL) Todd advised me it existed. Leaving the issue of how secure passwords should be aside for the moment, (we'll let the (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) Right! do all the really obvious checks first (the ones that would say things like "you know, using your first name may not be a good choice for a password") to save cycles. Well, let's have at it, I have some pw's I'd like an opinion on, and (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) Ouch... it passes @%)^*$, which is a +shift version of my birthdate. Now that's a bad password! Just like it doesn't allow an only numeric sequence, or an only alphabetic sequence, it should not allow an only spec. character sequence. -Shiri (24 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) appropriate (...) Thought of another reason to allow parameters or options to the checker... Some systems have restrictions on length of password, some systems are not case sensitive, some systems may not allow (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: New feature: Article rating
(...) Just a side note about the sign-in cookie... Your member ID and password are stored in the cookie, but in murfled form. Thus, if someone is able to steal your sign-in cookie, they can impersonate you, but they still won't know your password, (...) (24 years ago, 27-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm not a guru on the subject by any means, but while an attacker using wordlists and trying to crack a password with bruteforce or something like, I mean, by trial and error, I think any combination of dates are (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: New feature: Article rating
(...) can't someone already post in your name without knowing your password? I believe all you need to be able to post is your name and email address... heh, going to test that in a sec. btw, as far as password choosing and forcing - well, I believe (...) (24 years ago, 27-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <pw checker, play away... some design notes> Played with it some more and I am not sure I totally trust it. It thinks MT-5561 is a GREAT password and LEGOSystem4558 is a really bad one. I'm happy to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) from (...) ALL (...) that (...) numbers (...) This was a hypothetical example. Dates are not actually good passwords, but they're easy to use to demonstrate differences in context. my birthday is a bad password for me (one of the first few (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.838)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) I can say this much. It's not your tests. It's the context. Just like your tests give (hypothetically speaking) Lugnet123 a so so score because Lugnet isn't a word, but we know that lugnet isn't a very good root for a password to lugnet (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) It allows: a1b2c3, but fails 1a2b3c, I thought it would (and probably does) check for numeric sequences? (...) It fails: LL-918 as worthless, but gives LL-928 an excellent :) Maybe you should add lots of LEGO set names and abbreviations? EG (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
I guess this can be fun. With a bit of tweaking here and there, I just generated a password which returned a 1269% approval rating. Anyone think they can top that? __Kevin Salm__ (24 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) violator (...) Because it contributed NOTHING to the discussion. This one does. I'll respond below. (...) repeat (...) what (...) Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember all of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) [0-9]{4} . (...) to (...) longer (...) Waahh, now it hates one of my passwords... Hm, would you consider parametizing some of the things (or is the code something easily portable)? I'd like to check passwords (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) A couple questions about its structure...I don't know if you can answer these but it seems like you could maybe: Without giving away any hints about what it was, why did you think it was risky? Did it contain a word? Did it contain a word (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Member Password Center
(...) One nit I forgot to post, in the retirement section: c /Type the new password you want to retire:/Type the OLD password you want to retire:/ ++Lar (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) You mean, change from checking !->i to checking both !->i and !->l ? (It does currently check !->i -- did that not work for you in some instance?) (...) Good idea! (...) Lemme see about the above suggestions and then you can try it again later (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Re: Automated password appraisal (Re: New feature: Article rating)
(...) The way I've done something similar in the past is to create a larger dictionary: create a temp file with all words having their vowels removed, and do the c/k mutations too, if desired. Sort and remove duplicate entries. Finally, merge back (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

		Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
(...) I did a bit of back-reading on this topic, especially: (URL) I get the feeling that: a) Todd expects some form of LUGNET community regulation. b) Todd is waiting for us to self-organise, in the spirit that such an endeavour should happen as (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

password
(score: 0.837)

More: Next Page >>