Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:28 UTC
Bugs & Viruses If you want to ensure you have adequate passwords but don't have the time or interest to study the topic, there's a useful basic article on how to devise strong passwords over at the NY Times. It summarizes key points in 9 simple rules of thumb. Also see the follow-up article for useful reader feedback. Stay safe!
Permalink for comment 542027
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: make 'm long
by Laurence on Sun 11th Nov 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: make 'm long"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


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?

You're missing my point. Modern attacks aren't the old style brute force attacks which would try every combination of character. Instead they have every more sophisticated dictionaries (I'm not sure if those are hardcoded possibilities or heuristics).

The problem is we've had an influx of leaked passwords over recent years. Nearly every month another website gets hacked and passwords are leaked - and this provides a massive amount of source to learn user behaviour when selecting passwords which in turn allow attacked to build more intelligent cracking tools.

So I'm not saying that your examples are less secure than having plain English passwords; what I'm saying is that such passwords isn't more secure these days. What is more secure is a random hash of characters or doing away with passwords entirely - which is what I actually advocated if you go back and re-read my post. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2