 | | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) As is mine. Todd has one opinion of where that is. Some people think it is too strict. Some are happy. I wonder if any think it is too lenient? (...) I know it is affecting me. Todd sent me a new password and I set two more that hopefully I (...) (26 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) The BrickShelf uses the cookie returned *and* the ip address that the cookie was issued to for reauthenticate login. Nobody has complained about loosing login yet via multiple proxies (i.e. aol). Also, cookies can be made *much* more difficult (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) (URL) [...] On the other hand, a server could probably get around that by (...) I'm very tempted to head in that direction. Even not relaxing the strictness of the validator, I think it would be wise. (...) Cooking hacking is the logical place (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
|
(...) Um, yes I know that. It's also possible to generate "human random" dictionaries that speed up brute force of "strong" passwords where users are forced within certain limits. BTW, I wonder what the keyspace is of all (8 chars and less as (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Memberships
|
|
(...) Is there a way to tell if a given IP address is a shared proxy server or not? If you disable login access as one user from a given IP address, then you effectively disable login access as _all_ users from that IP address, because it would be (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
