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!
Thread beginning with comment 542154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: make 'm long
by Laurence on Mon 12th Nov 2012 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: make 'm long"
Member since:

If they can analyze raw passphrases for behavioural patterns in chosen words, they can surely do the same for the salt. As you say before, they don't have to break everyone's - just the easy ones.

You can't unless salts like that get leaked. They never have.

They can just use the service to generate the hash, so they don't even need to figure it out. They'll probably be able to automate the whole process and just target the, say, top 20 most used generators.

This is another example how why you need to read up on the subject. It's not as simple as you state there. There's a number of different ways a salt can be incorporated and each method would create a completely different and incompatible result.

They wouldn't need to reverse engineer. They could figure out the most popular generators and get those generators do the work of generating. All they will have to do is to get all the output variants and try it. They could even just use the web service you linked to, feed in its guesses, then scrape the returned webpage for the generated hashes.

That's exactly what I was discussing what I said "reverse engineer".

Given the massive range of variables involved, what you're describing would be the least accurate password attack routine to target the smallest subset of passwords (as not everyone currently employs this method). Maybe if 10 years from now everyone used my method, then you'd have a point - after all, security is an ever evolving fight. However in the current here and now, trying to identify which routine created the hash and then what the input values were for that is such an impracticality that brute force attacks are much more efficient. Thus making such hashes a reliable password generator.

As always, things might change in later years (just as how passphrases were best practices in security just a few years previously). But at the moment, what I'm recommending is a decent solution ;)

I'm not even trying to argue anything.

to be honest, I'm not convinced that you're now just trolling me.

Edited 2012-11-12 15:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[18]: make 'm long
by kwan_e on Tue 13th Nov 2012 01:12 in reply to "RE[17]: make 'm long"
kwan_e Member since:

I'm not even trying to argue anything.

to be honest, I'm not convinced that you're now just trolling me.

Well on the one hand you talk about the mathematical strength of password hashes, but then switch to practical considerations when talking about the weakness of passphrases.

It's almost a useless comparison. You can't talk about how passphrases are weak because the crackers do a massive spray-and-pray but then say password hashes are strong if we don't take into account similar spray-and-pray.

Let's just call it reciprocated trolling. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[19]: make 'm long
by Laurence on Tue 13th Nov 2012 08:22 in reply to "RE[18]: make 'm long"
Laurence Member since:

Clearly you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about if that's the conclusion you came to.

I've provided evidence to substantiate my claim but I guess you'd rather remain stupid. And good for you - every community needs an idiot.

Reply Parent Score: 2