On 02/16/2015 05:56 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> It's a hell of a long time since I did probabilities in high school
>>> maths, but if you just use letters instead of numbers, each position
>>> could be any of 26 characters (instead of 10 options)
>
> g:
>> or maybe they did not teach you correctly.
On 02/16/2015 05:59 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> Windows was well known for poor security, especially back then. And
>>> that is just one reason why you don't use the same password in
>>> multiple places.
>
> g:
>> i never do.
>
> The one saving grace of really annoying and different password
> re
On 02/15/2015 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
I have discovered a method of creating passwords that has helped me
greatly throughout the years. I learned it from this girl who was
always teased in school for being "weird" LoL! (Thank you
Tim:
>> Windows was well known for poor security, especially back then. And
>> that is just one reason why you don't use the same password in
>> multiple places.
g:
> i never do.
The one saving grace of really annoying and different password
requirements for different services was stopping peop
Tim:
>> It's a hell of a long time since I did probabilities in high school
>> maths, but if you just use letters instead of numbers, each position
>> could be any of 26 characters (instead of 10 options)
g:
> or maybe they did not teach you correctly. ;-)
>
> and, it is really not a probability
On 02/15/2015 10:16 PM, Tim wrote:
<<>>
> Well if you use a crappy encryption technique, it doesn't matter how
> good your password is, if you have a technique to be able to reverse
> engineer it (which is entirely different from just throwing passwords
> at some remote service which only give
On 02/15/2015 10:09 PM, Tim wrote:
<<>>
> It's a hell of a long time since I did probabilities in high school
> maths, but if you just use letters instead of numbers, each position
> could be any of 26 characters (instead of 10 options), and each
> position is not related to any other character
On 16.02.2015, Tim wrote:
> > Please search the net on "dictionary attack" in combination with words
> > like "feasibility", "speed" and the like. You will be blown away by
> > reading what can be done.
> Of course that kind of implies that you have something that will let you
> continuously t
On 02/15/2015 09:29 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, Heinz Diehl sent:
Please search the net on "dictionary attack" in combination with words
like "feasibility", "speed" and the like. You will be blown away by
reading what can be done.
Of course that kind of implies that
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, Heinz Diehl sent:
> Please search the net on "dictionary attack" in combination with words
> like "feasibility", "speed" and the like. You will be blown away by
> reading what can be done.
Of course that kind of implies that you have something that will le
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, g sent:
> a few years ago +1 day, when i needed to find password for a client
> running w98se, that had an employee leave. he actually was fired and
> when asked for his password, he supplied wrong password.
>
> granted, with w98se, such was not a great pro
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
> I have discovered a method of creating passwords that has helped me
> greatly throughout the years. I learned it from this girl who was
> always teased in school for being "weird" LoL! (Thank you
> Sharon..wherever you are
On 15.02.2015, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> I use Figaro's Password Manager. I don't know how good it is
> (and would like to hear about that)
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with it, so I can't answer here.
> .. but it does give me a lot of options in creating the password.
This plays a minor role,
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:32:05 + "Patrick O'Callaghan"
wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 15:30 +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On 15.02.2015, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> >
> > > Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
> >
> > KeePassX has strong encryption, is easy to han
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 15:30 +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 15.02.2015, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
>
> > Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
>
> KeePassX has strong encryption, is easy to handle and has user-configurable
> hash
> iteration to delay brute force attacks.
On 02/15/2015 08:50 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
<<>>
> [htd@keera ~]$ pwgen -sy 17 1 ?AQqh/utFcIl+p$2;
>
> Use KeePassX and encrypt its database with this password. Then, run
> Austrumi and report back how long time it took and how much
> expenditure it was to pay the electricity bill. You are allowe
On 02/15/2015 09:43 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 15.02.2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
imagine if the "word" ISN'T a word that's found in the dictionary.ANY
dictionary.would that qualify it as being a bit more secure?
Here's the "math" behind it, so you can calculate for yourself:
The
On 15.02.2015, g wrote:
> granted, with w98se, such was not a great problem, except that he
> had also encrypted a lot of files.
It totally depends on how much entropy a password has, assumed the crypto used
is strong and not flawed (e.g. proper implementation of AES, serpent, twofish
and the li
On 15.02.2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> imagine if the "word" ISN'T a word that's found in the dictionary.ANY
> dictionary.would that qualify it as being a bit more secure?
Here's the "math" behind it, so you can calculate for yourself:
The password strength (entropy) is calculate
On 15.02.2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> I agree that a human might not be able to crack it but even a PC would have
> a hard time if you use phrases, foreign words, and the like.
Please search the net on "dictionary attack" in combination with words like
"feasibility", "speed" and the like
On 02/15/2015 06:16 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
<>
> On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 22:07 +1030, Tim wrote:
<>
a few years ago, i would have agreed with you both.
except for, a few years ago +1 day, when i needed to find password
for a client running w98se, that had an employee leave. he actually
wa
On 15.02.2015, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
KeePassX has strong encryption, is easy to handle and has user-configurable hash
iteration to delay brute force attacks. For me, it seems to be perfectly
suited.
--
users mailing list
use
On 02/15/2015 09:27 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 15.02.2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
..the simple trick is to "push" each letter over by one! That's it!
ROT1 (or ROTX, where X is any number) is a common part of most of the
dictionary attacks, very easy to implement and causes near zero CPU l
On 02/15/2015 09:22 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 09:18 -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
I have discovered a method of creating passwords that has helped me
greatly throughout the years. I learned it from this girl who was
always
teased in school for being "weird" LoL!
On 15.02.2015, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> ..the simple trick is to "push" each letter over by one! That's it!
ROT1 (or ROTX, where X is any number) is a common part of most of the
dictionary attacks, very easy to implement and causes near zero CPU load.
So your ROT'ed password has not a sing
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 09:18 -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> I have discovered a method of creating passwords that has helped me
> greatly throughout the years. I learned it from this girl who was
> always
> teased in school for being "weird" LoL! (Thank you
> Sharon..wherever
> you ar
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 19:17 +0530, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
[Please don't top-post. See the list Guidelines]
I don't want to get into which of these is "better" as we all have
different ideas of what better means. Personally I use
On 02/15/2015 08:47 AM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
Hi,
Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
Krishna Prajapati
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
mailto:pocallag...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 22:07 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Sun,
Hi,
Still, I believe keepass is better. your opinion please?
Krishna Prajapati
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 22:07 +1030, Tim wrote:
> > On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 01:04 -0600, g wrote:
> > > an interesting page on "needles";
> > >
> > > https
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 22:07 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 01:04 -0600, g wrote:
> > an interesting page on "needles";
> >
> > https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm
>
> "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" gave interesting numbers, but all
> you need was three obscure, unrelated, words (
On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 01:04 -0600, g wrote:
> an interesting page on "needles";
>
> https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" gave interesting numbers, but all
you need was three obscure, unrelated, words (e.g. bluepigsskiing) to
come up with some ridiculously diffi
On 02/14/2015 10:37 PM, Tim wrote:
<<>>
> I'm of the opposite vein. I really appreciate being able to view
> passwords stored on my computer. There are so many different things
> that require logon credentials that I cannot remember all of them all of
> the time. And I hate those blanked off
On 15 February 2015 at 02:39, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
> stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
> I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
> Pure ignorance, I guess.
>
>
In the past the username/password pairs were
Allegedly, on or about 15 February 2015, Timothy Murphy sent:
> I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
> stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
> I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
> Pure ignorance, I guess.
If someone has unfettered access to you
Timothy Murphy writes:
I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
Pure ignorance, I guess.
Obviously Firefox needs to save and recover all your passwords, if it were
to au
On 02/15/15 08:39, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
> stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
> I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
> Pure ignorance, I guess.
Check the box, "use master password" for "maximum" security.
On 02/14/2015 07:45 PM, jd1008 wrote:
> On 02/14/2015 05:39 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
>> stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
>> I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
>> Pure ignorance, I guess.
>>
> You a
On 02/14/2015 05:39 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was rather surprised to find that I could read the passwords
stored by Mozilla/Firefox (Preferences=>Security).
I always assumed they were encrypted in some way.
Pure ignorance, I guess.
You actually trusted FF to secure your online web account
38 matches
Mail list logo
