Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 541992
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-10
* concatenating words together is more secure == false. Modern attacks use a dictionary of words and tries combinations of such words concatenated.
* using txt spk / l33t style words are harder to crack than common words == false. Modern dictionaries have every imaginable combination of number and non-alpha/numeric substitutions of letters as well as plain English words.
* using non-English words are more secure == false. Dictionaries include words from most languages, proper-nouns and even slang that isn't technically part of any language.
Password cracking has come a long way in the last few years and current security advice hasn't kept up with development.
Use lower case: 26 possibilities
Use upper case: 26 possibilities
Use numbers: 10 possibilities
Use punctuation: 32 possibilites
Use them all: 94 possibilities per character
Using English is the easiest way to fall victim to dictionary attacks. Put in another language and suddenly the cracker would have to include 20+ dictionaries. Put in a dialect and the cracker would need to put 2000+ dictionaries in.
How can you possibly claim that increasing the possibilities is _not_ more secure?