8tpercent to TechnologyEnglish • 1 year agoPasswordsimagemessage-square222arrow-up11.3Karrow-down1112file-text
arrow-up11.19Karrow-down1imagePasswords8tpercent to TechnologyEnglish • 1 year agomessage-square222file-text
minus-squareCorhenlinkEnglish2•1 year agoOk, fair, not all 32 digit passwords will be secure. 11111111111111111111111111111111 is not secure, but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.
minus-square@graphitelinkEnglish1•edit-21 year ago but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure. I understand, and I think you make a valid point as far as the discussion is concerned. It’s unfortunately still a little more complicated than that, though. Like I said, there’s more to a password than length and symbol type. Even something like cF*+@aXbIdFHje2vZiU-1 is less secure than if it were generated by a good PRNG. D0@ndro!dsDr@3@m0f3l3ctr!cSh33p? is also insecure, though it might have been considered secure 4-5 years ago. You see what I’m saying? Then of course there’s hash algorithms and how those are used to authenticate the passwords themselves, etc.
Ok, fair, not all 32 digit passwords will be secure.
11111111111111111111111111111111 is not secure, but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.
I understand, and I think you make a valid point as far as the discussion is concerned.
It’s unfortunately still a little more complicated than that, though.
Like I said, there’s more to a password than length and symbol type.
Even something like cF*+@aXbIdFHje2vZiU-1 is less secure than if it were generated by a good PRNG.
D0@ndro!dsDr@3@m0f3l3ctr!cSh33p? is also insecure, though it might have been considered secure 4-5 years ago.
You see what I’m saying?
Then of course there’s hash algorithms and how those are used to authenticate the passwords themselves, etc.