On Tue 12 Jul 2016 at 18:53:29 +0200, mwnx wrote: > > So, you're blaming a perfectly good (and reasonably secure) way of > > remote access, but somehow assume that weak passwords are ok. > > By that logic you should not stop there. Why not blame any remote access > > mechanism that uses PAM for password checking as well? > > There are many kinds of systems on which weak passwords are OK. For
There is no system which justifies having a weak password (whatever "weak" means). You might like to give an example of an ok weak password. > instance, a home PC has no need whatsoever for a strong password. If Whatever "strong" means this could make sense. On the other hand, it could be total nonsense. > someone breaks into my home, they have access to my data anyway; and Burglars carry Debian Live CDs these days? The ones round here just kick the door in, load the goods into their cars and fence it > the password is for local use only. If some malware gets into my > computer, it can get the root password through keylogging. I wondered when we would get to malware. You need a new thread for this. I hope you make a better job of it than the post which started this discussion. > Note: this weak password can still be useful to protect my privacy > from guests. The cat from next door always looks very intently at me when I am at the keyboard. Is that normal feline behaviour?
