Slashdot Mirror


Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

HughPickens.com writes Micah Lee writes at The Intercept that coming up with a good passphrase by just thinking of one is incredibly hard, and if your adversary really is capable of one trillion guesses per second, you'll probably do a bad job of it. It turns out humans are a species of patterns, and they are incapable of doing anything in a truly random fashion. But there is a method for generating passphrases that are both impossible for even the most powerful attackers to guess, yet very possible for humans to memorize. First, grab a copy of the Diceware word list, which contains 7,776 English words — 37 pages for those of you printing at home. You'll notice that next to each word is a five-digit number, with each digit being between 1 and 6. Now grab some six-sided dice (yes, actual real physical dice), and roll them several times, writing down the numbers that you get. You'll need a total of five dice rolls to come up with each word in your passphrase. Using Diceware, you end up with passphrases that look like "cap liz donna demon self", "bang vivo thread duct knob train", and "brig alert rope welsh foss rang orb". If you want a stronger passphrase you can use more words; if a weaker passphrase is ok for your purpose you can use less words. If you choose two words for your passphrase, there are 60,466,176 different potential passphrases. A five-word passphrase would be cracked in just under six months and a six-word passphrase would take 3,505 years, on average, at a trillion guesses a second.

After you've generated your passphrase, the next step is to commit it to memory.You should write your new passphrase down on a piece of paper and carry it with you for as long as you need. Each time you need to type it, try typing it from memory first, but look at the paper if you need to. Assuming you type it a couple times a day, it shouldn't take more than two or three days before you no longer need the paper, at which point you should destroy it. "Simple, random passphrases, in other words, are just as good at protecting the next whistleblowing spy as they are at securing your laptop," concludes Lee. "It's a shame that we live in a world where ordinary citizens need that level of protection, but as long as we do, the Diceware system makes it possible to get CIA-level protection without going through black ops training."

267 comments

  1. Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diceware is a great recommendation, but you're missing one key consideration: password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password. The Apple iCloud hack is one of the few in recent memory where a password-related breach wasn't tied to password reuse. What happens most of the time is that a site is vulnerable to SQL injection gets their users table stolen, and "bad guys" use that information to try accounts on related sites. If the compromised website was using a bad (i.e. fast) password hashing algorithm, then having a good password will protect you a little, but you're playing with fire. Password cracking techniques have been advancing exponentially, as has GPU power. But if this site is using reversible encryption or storing passwords in plaintext (which still happens with alarming frequency) then all your other accounts are at risk from the one breach regardless of how great your password is. Of course, if they're using a good password algorithm like PBKDF2 or bcrypt, even a mediocre password will be relatively safe. But what are the chances that every site you've registered with is using a good password algorithm? Probably zero. How can you check the password storing technique of a site you're about to register with? You can't.

    Yeah, you could make an algorithm to modify your password across sites so that you can memorize it yet it'll be different, but as "bad guys" combine information from multiple leaks, any algorithm you come up with will be vulnerable to reverse engineering. Especially if your online identity is valuable. The real solution is to use password management software like KeePass, LastPass, or 1Password. Lock your password program with your good password from Diceware, and use unique, truly random passwords for all the websites you've registered on.

    1. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by mlts · · Score: 5, Informative

      I prefer 2FA when possible. Even a very tough password means nothing if by some means, it gets sniffed by some keylogger, or the password database on a cloud provider gets brute-forced.

      For storage where one is using a passphrase for encryption, as opposed to authentication, I like using cryptographic tokens. TrueCrypt used to work with a PKCS#11 library so I could store a keyfile on a set of Aladdin/SafeNet eTokens. This not just made the key immune to brute force guessing... someone who physically possesses the token has three guesses of my unlocking passphrase before the token locks itself forever and zeroes out the stored keyfile. This also works with Symantec's PGP version, except that generates a public/private keypair, the private keypair always remaining on the token, while the public part is used for the file/drive encryption.

      If 2FA isn't possible, then as above, some mechanism to help with password reuse is very wise. This is useful just in case some website decides to store passwords in plain text, so a person's secure "correct horse battery staple" is now compromised and added to every blackhat's brute forcing library.

    2. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      A way to get "halfway there" and increase your security without having a separate password for every single site is to have passwords by security level. For all the crapware websites you have one password, for work use one password, then use frequently changed high security pass phrases for certain specific sites, like one for each major bank you use and one for each major email account, etc. You don't need a hundred passwords just because you have been forced to create useless profiles on low security sites.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    3. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by PetiePooo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password.

      The best of both worlds: use a six-to-eight word diceware password for your password manager, and generate a long, random password for everything else.

    4. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by johanwanderer · · Score: 1

      And it is still vulnerable to the crowbar hack. Especially if you have to carry a piece of paper with you while you're trying to commit it to memory.

    5. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 2

      Treating numerous accounts as "low security" and reusing your passwords across them is still dangerous, in my opinion, but it's up to you whether the effort of storing those extra passwords in your password management program is worth the added security. Information gleaned from multiple "low security" accounts could potentially be combined to get access to your high security accounts. And once you get password management software set up, I've found it's much easier than remembering and typing, even for the accounts I don't care about. Autofill is glorious, and I really love never having to play the game of "have I already registered for this site?"

    6. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by AikonMGB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password.

      The best of both worlds: use a six-to-eight word diceware password for your password manager, and generate a long, random password for everything else.

      This. I also use a separate diceware password for my primary email. That way if someone does manage to break/steal my password manager database, I still have secure and sole access to my email, which many sites will require for you to re-gain control of your account.

    7. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      I stopped using Groklaw back in the day because they started requiring excessively complex passwords. They seemed to feel that their forums were rather important, when in fact the only really important part was what people could read, not what they would post.

      I'm sure that most of us would be upset if our accounts on various forums or bulletin board systems were compromised, but it wouldn't be life-altering for the vast majority of us. Social Media that's designed to avoid anonymity like Facebook would be worse but still ultimately doesn't affect one's bottom-line, but things like banks and e-mail services where everyon's stuff ultimately consoldiates are much more important.

      I wish that we could trust central ID systems, where we could create an account on a forum site with a unique user ID and then link that user ID to a central authentication database so that our central credentials give us acces via that unique user ID, but I just don't trust the authentication databases. I'm already leery enough of Active Directory that I don't use work passwords anywhere else to begin with, but companies providing such a service don't necessarily know what they're doing, and they're probably too willin to hand over information for what sites people would need authentication to as well.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I don't know my passwords for almost any sites at this point.

      Another bonus to password manager, you can actually remember all the sites you've signed up at, and at least ATTEMPT to de-register later (whatever that means).

      And then just try to monitor your password manager and hope no exploits come out for IT ...

    9. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      Every everything is vulnerable. You have to make choices to minimize your vulnerability given the current risk environment. You're millions of times more likely to have your password leaked because it was stored in an insecure manner on a vulnerable server than to be subjected to a crowbar hack, so you should prioritize your defense accordingly.

    10. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The real solution is to use password management software like KeePass, LastPass, or 1Password. Lock your password program with your good password from Diceware, and use unique, truly random passwords for all the websites you've registered on.

      At the cost of travelling around with the keys to the kingdom. Imagine you're on vacation and you want to pop into an internet cafe and log into /. because abstinence. Except it has a keylogger/trojan that'll steal your key file and your master password. Now you've compromised your email, online bank, ebay, paypal, steam and all the other passwords that might really matter. Personally I tend to keep three:

      1) My mail, because it gets all the password resets.
      2) My bank, but it's using two-factor anyway.
      3) My "assorted junk" password where I might lose my forum account or whatever that doesn't *really* matter.

      I really try not to use the first two on an untrusted device unless I really have to, because afterwards I need to change it. In fact if I know I will need to use it I'll change it on a trusted device up front and restore it later, good memorized passwords are a pain to relearn.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, when you're traveling you use the mobile app to access your password database, read it off your phone, and then you type it into the infected computer. No need to be stupid about it.

    12. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I'll reply to this in just a minute. I'm still typing my 1,000 character /. password in.

      oh wait - you already stole it from Adobe? damn.

      Please wait while I create a new password, "Zza"

      that'll keep you busy 'cause you probably start at 8 character guessing.

    13. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but as "bad guys" combine information from multiple leaks, any algorithm you come up with will be vulnerable to reverse engineering

      If you are at the point were you are being specifically targeted by people with the resources to access multiple leaks, then you are probably screwed anyway. They'll just put a keylogger trojan on your computer and password managers are just as vulnerable to that.

    14. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I memorized site-unique passwords.
      Very long ones at that. These passwords are onAverageAroundThisSizeWithTwoSetsOfWordsAndNumbers.

      Most of my passwords start with a prefix, uncommon words and numbers. (or shorter for crap sites*)
      Then the suffix section contains the unique identifier.
      The generation is straightforward, but creates incredible complexity using a unique ID: the service / site name in question.
      Obviously I won't state the system used, but it isn't really all that impressive. Think matching letters and numbers to 2 axes with letters and numbers on it too.
      That isn't all there is to it though.
      Universe-destroying numbers and easy to memorize.

      However, your last suggestion is definitely a better one if you aren't good with memorizing sequences well.
      May as well secure your randomized passwords with a sentence-password like this.
      Even more, if you want to add an extra layer of security, use a number as a spacer instead of space.
      It doesn't even matter what this number is, it could be pi, it will also make the password complexity explode through the roof of the universe and hit god in his non corporeal smug face. Doesn't even need to be all of pi, just wrap and repeat the digits.
      So3something1like4this3will1lead4to3insanely1complex4passwords.

      * Of course, many crappy websites are atrocious, including ones of vital importance (like BANKING) that have extremely limited security and some even limit your password sizes as well. (I do have a separate password, 5 separate passwords, for various levels of websites)

    15. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      Well, no. That's an entirely different type of attack, requiring entirely different skills and resources. Script kiddies are perfectly able to download a bunch of leaked databases, look for username or email address matches between them, read the passwords in plaintext, guess that you're using the site name or url to modify your passwords, and then try your username and password on amazon or banking or webmail sites. They're not going to be able to say "Man, look at that guy's password! I should hack a trojan onto his computer by backtracing his IP address using a Visual Basic GUI!"

      Also of note, KeePass has defenses against keyloggers.

    16. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now I know where Pink Floyd got early song titles from.

    17. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      I wish that we could trust central ID systems, where we could create an account on a forum site with a unique user ID and then link that user ID to a central authentication database so that our central credentials give us acces via that unique user ID, but I just don't trust the authentication databases. I'm already leery enough of Active Directory that I don't use work passwords anywhere else to begin with, but companies providing such a service don't necessarily know what they're doing, and they're probably too willin to hand over information for what sites people would need authentication to as well.

      You mean OAuth?

    18. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, dont use an internet cafe or other public computer to do anything sensitive and just read websites on your phone if you really have to.

    19. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by ghmh · · Score: 5, Funny

      "correct horse battery staple"

      That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

    20. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      That's a tough battle to fight. Users, when faced with making a decision between fulfilling their immediate digital urge and being safe, will choose to fulfill their digital urge 99% of the time. If "being safe" was an option presented via dialogue box, 99% of the 1% that initially chose to be safe will repeat the action so they can make the digital urge fulfillment choice instead.

    21. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      reminds me of a guy who posted to the bitcoin section of reddit, he stumbled on some 67 bitcoins because he'd miss-typed in one one of those long passphrases with supposedly random words.

    22. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I compromise with somewhat 2 factor:
      A system that uses the sites name + the password I remember

      So, I'm at walgreens:
      walgreens-brig-alert-rope

      CVS becomes
      cvs-brig-alert-rope

      So if one is compromised it doesn't -by default- work with the other sites. Still compromisable with inspection ("hey -- there's a pattern here, let's try that"), but...

      Plus, if you're using swype, you can swipe the individual words... if someone grabs your phone, they won't succeed at finding d3adben1mans in your custom dictionary and trying that on you BankOfAmerica app.

    23. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the best password managers was my old Palm V. Since the device was only connected to the computer to load the applications coupled with the fact that the data would not sync back via the usual Palm sync, it was pretty sure. No Wi-Fi, no BlueTooth, no NFC, no cellular... the data that was on there stayed on there. At the time, McAfee had an application which used PGP encryption and drives, so it had decent crypto protecting the passwords.

    24. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      That would be nice, but my bank won't let me use passwords that long. They won't even let me use punctuation or special characters - only upper and lowercase letters, and numbers. Some security, huh?

    25. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your personal email is the most important account you have for the reason you set forth: you can use it to reset passwords to all of your other accounts! That's why I use Google Mail along with the FIDO U2F dongle. This makes my email really secure.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    26. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Rei · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the suggested method for generating passwords generates needlessly long passwords. The total entropy is good, but the entropy per character is pretty poor. You get much better entropy per character with abbreviation passwords, where you have a sentence or group of random words and you use the first letter from each, or second, or last, or alternating, or whatever suits you. It's still not as much entropy per character as a random pattern, but it's much better than writing out full words - and pops into your head just as fast (because it is, in essence, the same).

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    27. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While certainly possible, that's going to be a very rare threat. All the low-hanging fruit has to be taken and the crackers are scratching at the bottom of the barrel.

    28. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

      "luggage"

      Wow! That's the combination to the staple holding the energy source to my battery-powered equine robot -- the right one, not the wrong one.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    29. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This system is no good. I tried rolling the dice now my password is onetwothreefourfivesix!1 (I added the special character and number because it makes it harder to crack.

    30. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a PW Manager and you only need to remember a Single PW to access your PW List.

      My preference is Keepass due to cross platform availability - Linux/FreeBSD/Mac/Android

    31. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've been saying this for years. Ever since nightclubs take photos of drivers licenses and thumb prints, as well as employers with their background security checks. No business out there should ever be privy to such information to collect, and they do collect and store it. The notion of this information going to some businesses patchy database (quite commonly in excel format) is very disturbing.
      A man in the middle security service should be required to do this work and identify requirements of the business as true or false. Is this person ok to work here? false. nuff said.

    32. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by muridae · · Score: 1

      Instead they just ask swype for access to their "living language" database that stored things you typed along with locations to keep track of "words used in certain locales". Look back in the news about 2 years, when swype was using up large amounts of people's data plans and read between the lines a little about swypes "reason" for doing so and methods to stop the keyboard from doing it.

    33. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Use a password manager and you:
      - Cannot access your accounts without the password manager. Like when you've had everything stolen at an airport and need to transfer some money.
      - Lose access to all your passwords in one fell swoop when you lose your password manager, or move to a system where that (by then) old piece of software won't run.
      - Lose all your passwords in one fell swoop to any blackhat who manages to brute force or key log your password manager.

      Password managers defeat much of the security of having passwords.

    34. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even know my pass phrase to my manager. It's something ridiculously long and hard.
      But I have that phrase in another encrypted database behind a phrase that I do remember... :)

    35. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I stopped using Groklaw back in the day because they started requiring excessively complex passwords.

      People were being paid to disrupt Groklaw and even stalk and shame the founder. It's not paranoia when serious cash is being splashed to deface your website and a fucking insane horror writer (who pretends murdering ghosts are real) is parked across from your house watching your front door.
      It's a special case.

    36. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by pspahn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is pretty much what I do. I personally don't like all the generic words, and instead use variations of a similar pattern. I have several main patterns that I can determine which one to use based on a rule I know that takes the site's name into account. This is my base password.

      Then I take the site's name and apply another rule to it. This becomes my salt.

      Together they become a very complex password that is unique for each site and yet very easy for me to remember. An example (of course not close to what I use, but you get the idea) for Slashdot would be:

      Slashdot.org - TLD is org so we use Gro.dotSlash as the hash + 19 (slashdot begins w/S, the 19th letter) + someone I love's DOB 9-18-80, so the full password is Gro.dotSlash1991880?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    37. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      For sites where you don't care if you get locked out for a few hours or days - password managers are just fine. (Just like anything else -- keep backups in a different format / location / etc.)

      I belong to maybe 2-3 dozen forums (or more). All of them use random 20-30 character passwords and I just let the browser remember it (with a backup copy in a GPG encrypted text file). There's no point in my trying to memorize those passwords - and using a password manager means I don't have the same password in use in multiple places.

      Use them for high security things like your primary email or bank accounts? Eh, better to rely on paper records stored in a fire resistant safe.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    38. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      The U2F project is one of the really good things google did. I hope it becomes successful. I hate mobile phone "2 factor" authentification because you give them basically your identity, its hard to work with (entering weird numbers?!), and relies on 3rd parties (telcos, security of the mobile network).

    39. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's actually think about this for a second.

      I run a small business so I have a business savings account and a business current account.
      I have a personal savings account and a personal current account.

      That's 4 accounts that need to be secure right there.

      I then shop online a lot so I need to ensure all of these are secure as they store my bank details / credit card details. This list is easily 20+ websites. The same goes for my utility companies, so that's gas, electric, phone, broadband, mobile phone.

      Now I'm up to 30+ accounts that need to be secure. Compromising any one of these will provide the attacker my full name, DoB, address, bank details, credit card details and email address.

      So no, it isn't feasible in the slightest to remember 30+ secure passwords. You're much better off using a password manager, which is exactly what I do.

    40. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the suggested method for generating passwords generates needlessly long passwords. The total entropy is good, but the entropy per character is pretty poor. You get much better entropy per character with abbreviation passwords, where you have a sentence or group of random words and you use the first letter from each, or second, or last, or alternating, or whatever suits you. It's still not as much entropy per character as a random pattern, but it's much better than writing out full words - and pops into your head just as fast (because it is, in essence, the same).

      Remembering such things as "four score and seven years ago" "my cat has used 4 of 9 lives"... fsasyamchu4o9l

      Added advantage: if I *did* need a piece of paper to carry around with me "a few days" to remember that, as the OP said, I could put "4score4of9" on the paper and probably still remember it, without having my actual password written down anywhere.

    41. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by pmontra · · Score: 1

      First, you should not use somebody's else computer, Internet shop included. Use your phone or tablet over https if possible.
      If you really can't do that, use a local password manager like KeepassX on your phone and copy the password by hand on the computer. You compromised only that site. However this can be extremely painful if you use fully random password like g27rkuqhLJcM46G9YsxV4rlF9ACtveB1. These are 32 characters with only letters and digits to limit the typing errors (think about entering punctuation on a very foreign keyboard layout). According to KeepassX its strenght is 191 "quality bits" defined as the "equivalent size of a random symmetric key."
      If you use an Internet password manager on an untrusted machine you run into the problem you described and all your accounts are compromised.
      By the way, assuming that passwords are stored as SHA-2 (64 characters) should we use 64 characters passwords to minimize the risk of collisions?

    42. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SQRL

    43. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use KeePass with my password store on Dropbox, so I can access it from home, work and phone (KeePassDroid). If Dropbox gets hacked, brute forcing my password won't work, because I use a key file (stored outside of Dropbox) as well.
      The initial setup is a slight pain, but I'm happy with the system.
      If someone's keylogging me, then yeah they can get my key file & everything. But otherwise I can always get to my passwords or walk someone else through getting them at my house or office.

    44. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by eneville · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong, use something like https://www.usenix.org.uk/cont...

    45. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I use Keepass backed up a cloud storage drive and my home server. Even if I lose everything on me I can still go to any random computer and access the database file, and open it with a quick download of Keepass. In the event that I lost everything at the airport I'm sure I could scrounge give minutes of computer time from somewhere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by DedTV · · Score: 1

      I prefer simple, personal methods easy for humans to remember but difficult for machines to guess. Things like passages out of a favorite book, modified versions of song lyrics, etc.
      For example, take the first half of a chorus from one song and a the last half of a verse from another by a different artist of a different genre and combine them and you have a multiple word pass phrase that's easy to remember . Even if the attacker knows to use song lyrics, with so many songs out there and ways to vary how you use their lyrics, it'd still be very difficult to break by machine.

    47. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem i have is not so much with the complexity, but with the fact that we now are required to maintain a slew of passwords which makes it virtually impossible to memorize. Many sites require strong passwords but these sites are trivial, forums, etc...

    48. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      Not really. If "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn1" isn't safe, your choice of mixed song lyrics probably isn't, either, asuming a malicious actor is trying to figure out the input when they know the MD5 output. And if they've compromised a site that was storing your password in plaintext, your password strength is completely irrelevant. Like I said, the real issue is password reuse, and it's impossible for a human to memorize good, unique passwords for every site they visit. Password managers are the only solution for people who value their online identity.

    49. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Password managers aren't a magic solution either as someone with a camera phone and a good angle or infection by a simple keylogger can negate any security a password manager can provide. Plus, they give attackers a single point of focus to gain access to all your passwords for every website you use (and potentially more if you use form fill in features to store credit card info) in a very handy reference list. Like everything else, they're only a secure as the weakest point in the chain between you and whichever manager you use.

      The only real solution for people who value their online identity is to never establish one at all. And even then someone might establish one in your name if they get access to the right records database. All anyone can really do is try to find a solution that is convenient and not stupidly insecure while ensuring they know how to minimize the damage if/when their information is compromised in some way (watch bank and credit card statements, check credit report frequently, etc..).

    50. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      For someone who does want an online identity, password management software is by far the best option for anyone with a moderately valuable one. Of course there isn't a perfect solution, but it would be wronger than wrong to suggest that since there are ways to subvert password management software, then it's no better than memorization. A good camera angle or keylogger will steal your memorized passwords as you type them just as easily as it will from a password manager. Easier, in many cases. And your "single point of failure" argument is weakened by the fact that even a moderate password locking a database of one of the popular password managers would be resistant to years of offline attack. I mean, sure, the lack of convenience is an argument against using a password manager, but it's also an argument against wearing a seatbelt. It's needlessly risky to type a memorized password into a site where you have no visibility on what they're doing with it, what security they have in place to detect breaches, or even if they'd notify you when your credentials were stolen. Monitoring your credit report is a valuable part of a defense in depth but not as an alternative to good password practices.

    51. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that there was a real suspicion that some of the people involved had already been involved in criminal activity up to and including homicide. Not saying that anybody was or the suspicions were accurate, but they were there.

    52. Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      report them to the banking commission for inadequate web security, and change banks.

  2. Blackbriar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let see how long it takes for the NSA to send in the secret police!

  3. Yes, but.... by djbckr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about the sites that restrict the length of the password? The only thing I have to say to them is, "You're doing it wrong".

    1. Re:Yes, but.... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      ...or even worse, sites that require you to use a specific combination of alphanumeric, numbers, special characters, the blood of a newborn kitten, etc.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Yes, but.... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Or the other sites that simply truncate your input without telling you, so when you put in 40 characters it only takes 16?
      8 character limits were common up until a few years ago. Today I still see 16 (and 15 because of broken front ends) effective limits. 32 seems to be the most common.

    3. Re:Yes, but.... by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's be a bit more specific about that.

      If they're restricting the length to something like 8 or 12 or 16 instead of 128 or 256 then they are PROBABLY not hashing the passwords.

      Which means that your password is PROBABLY being stored in plain text (or possibly encrypted). NEITHER of which are acceptable methods today.

    4. Re:Yes, but.... by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about "probably". I'd say it's probable that if they're restricting length then at some point they were being stupid like storing passwords in a VARCHAR(8), but lots of times those restrictions get kept for backwards compatibility even after they've upgraded how they're storing passwords. The best canary in the coalmine is whether they'll email or display your old password as part of the password reset process.

    5. Re:Yes, but.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What about the sites that restrict the length of the password? The only thing I have to say to them is, "You're doing it wrong".

      There is something deeper behind this. There is no technical reason why password length should be restricted as the resulting hashes are the same length effectively. Every time I see a max password length I can't help but wonder if the reason is limited space in a database column and that some braindead idiot is storing the passwords in plaintext.

      Every time I come up with a password that has a maximum entry I ensure I use a strictly unique password.

    6. Re:Yes, but.... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      My bloody bank required 8-12 characters, and required uppercase, lowercase, digits and special characters.

      Obviously the lovely scheme that is suggested here isn't going to work with that. On the other hand, when you are using an iPad, a 30 character all lowercase password is quicker and easier to type and more likely to get right than 8 uppercase/lowercase/digits/special characters. Now imagine if they allow space characters in the password and turn the spelling checker on as well.

    7. Re:Yes, but.... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      8 character limits were common up until a few years ago. Today I still see 16 (and 15 because of broken front ends) effective limits. 32 seems to be the most common.

      I still see them far too often. My normal password patterns are different than the ones presented but still several words long. Many places requiring accounts still greet me with "Password must be between 6-8 characters, and must contain at least one uppercase letter, lowercase letter, number, and symbol."

      I also too-frequently get "Passwords must not contain a space". It prevents me from entering my password of "correct horse battery staple", which is really annoying.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    8. Re:Yes, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My online banking has a relatively short max length for password (I think it's 12 chars), and the reasoning is that people tend to write down long passwords instead of memorizing them.

      I guess it looks better on the bank if someone's account is compromised because their password was "kitten222" rather than someone "breaking" a strong password because they found a slip of paper.

    9. Re:Yes, but.... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      I limit password length on a few sites because it was of user requirement (all willing to agreed 40 or 80 char max). I figure this is long enough to satisfy most people that understand password security. Of course, I use a one way salted hash. So, I can't send the password back to the user on a reset, also often given as a requirement by the user.

      Difference is, I won't do the last one though. Why the difference, pick your battles. 40 character limit, not really a big problem, not using a 1-way hash, big problem.

    10. Re:Yes, but.... by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      And then you have to change it every three months. And not to anything you've used in the last decade.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  4. Still not allowed by many places. by timrod · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many websites, especially those designed to be more secure (banking, education, employment) still require passwords in a certain form (usually requiring some combination of caps, numbers, and special characters) and don't allow passwords like these.

    1. Re:Still not allowed by many places. by mlts · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the ideal password manager would be one that would use a typed in password as a seed/IV (hash a seed and the sitename), with exceptions stored for sites which don't allow passwords generated with that tool to work. Some sites require a number, a capital letter, lower case letter, a symbol (well, not all symbols work), or some other random, annoying combination of the above.

      Of course, the ideal password manager would store the password database with a master volume key, then each device accessing it would have the MVK encrypted to its public key. This way, if someone wants to add a device, they just allow access on another device. If someone wants to remove access, it is doable, but it would be wise to re-encrypt the DB to a new key for security. This is how PGPDisk did its encryption, and it completely deters brute-forcing, should someone get access to the data stored on the cloud, since there is no password, so the attacker has to deal with the entire key's keyspace.

      Since the private key is on the device, the user just needs a PIN to unlock (with a timeout after too many wrong attempts), rather than a longer passphrase. Both iOS and Android have secure storage (KeyChain for example) which makes this easy to implement securely.

    2. Re:Still not allowed by many places. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prefix your passphrase with Q!q1 ...or some other easy to type combination, e.g. p0P) or whatever, just something you'll easily remember and use consistently.

    3. Re:Still not allowed by many places. by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Even Stackexchange (you know, that programmer place) does that. "Uppercase, punctuation, numbers. Pick two." My password there is now 'Password!'

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    4. Re:Still not allowed by many places. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U$3 1337-$p33k

  5. Wait a sec by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Dosent the NSA have backdoors in every encryption algo we know ?

    1. Re:Wait a sec by hatemonger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly the opposite: "Encryption works" was one of the key points made by Edward Snowden. The NSA found it much easier to just bypass encryption. There are some instances where we suspect the NSA has had a hand weakening or backdooring some algorithms (like recommending odd seed values for elliptic curve cryptography) but nothing definitive.

    2. Re:Wait a sec by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      ROT13 is pretty safe, especially if it's used twice.

    3. Re:Wait a sec by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Probably. The concept of a useful one-way function is absurd on the face of it.
      Sure, f(x) = 0x is one-way - given 0 as an output you'll never guess the input. But it's not useful because all we need to do is guess any input that leads to the desired output.

    4. Re:Wait a sec by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      and without the letter "e"

    5. Re:Wait a sec by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      ROT-10 is safer, especially when used on ancient wooden chests.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Wait a sec by suutar · · Score: 1

      yep. Which is why hashes are long and getting longer - more inputs to try in order to find the output needed.

    7. Re: Wait a sec by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      That's the most common protocol on Apples.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:Wait a sec by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      "123457" has always been a fine deceptive password

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please stop modding this same joke up to (5, Funny) every single time?

  6. Advice for Dice by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Hey Dice, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  7. xkcd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How's that any different from http://xkcd.com/936/?

    1. Re:xkcd... by FlipperPA · · Score: 1

      +1, they obviously just read the comic!

    2. Re:xkcd... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      Well, the obvious difference is you can't use "correct horse battery staple", because the NSA knows about that one. Their CIA colleagues probably managed to extract it using the $5 wrench decryption algorithm.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:xkcd... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      How's that any different from http://xkcd.com/936/?

      And if you want to make it exceptionally strong, you combine those techniques. "correct horse battery staple" is strong, "correcT horXe batt6ery st&ple" is heat death of universe-strong and actually not much harder to learn.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:xkcd... by duranaki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, they read the comic, but then thought, "Damn, thinking of random words is hard! If only we could make a 37 page document and use dice to pick words!" And then someone else shouted, "Genius! I own shares in Yahtzee! This will totally increase sales!"

    5. Re:xkcd... by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      It's difficult to quantify "hard to remember-ness" but I strongly suspect that if you could normalize for difficulty remembering a password, adding more words is more efficient that mutating existing ones for a looooong time.

      It's not that hard to memorize Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" soliloquy character-for-character even though it uses terms and turns of phrase that are no longer current or even grammatical. I had to do that in grade 11, I thought it was dumb, but I remember it to this day, complete with the punctuation used in my copy (I know different copies can punctuate a little differently, but we had to get the punctuation nonetheless).

      If I took every word and made a single-character mutation (insertion, deletion, or replacement), and raced you against somebody memorizing the text straight up (assuming neither of you are really familiar with the speech), I bet by the time they had it solid you wouldn't have even a quarter of it.

    6. Re:xkcd... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Or instead of Hamlet, take a random book of poetry off the shelf in the "Obscure Poets" section of a library, go to a random page, then memorize the poem on that page. Take first letter of the first word, second letter of the second word, etc. Make up a capitalization pattern, add a few numbers, then you have it.

      With the dice list, you are completely dependant on the crackers not knowing that you used it, and that makes the entropy calculations shear nonsense.

  8. Wait? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

    I thought we were just supposed to use

    CorrectHorseBatteryStaple

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Wait? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Great! Now I have to change the password on my luggage!

      ...thanks a lot... :(

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Wait? by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      I thought we were just supposed to use
      CorrectHorseBatteryStaple

      Nah, hunter 2 works much better.

    3. Re:Wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In one of our yearly must be attended classes that was used as an example of a secure password, they didn't understand when I said it was so commonly known as a secure password that it had been added to the words in a dictionary attack.

    4. Re:Wait? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      The list doesn't contain "Correct", "Battery" or "Staple". I declare it useless!

  9. Many died of unstoppable laughter in Langley. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

    NSA built the first quantum computer in 1995 with just 6 kubits. In the past 20 years they made tremendous progress with billions of taxpayer money, so their lastest ship has more kubits then the L x W x H of Noah's Ark... They find Iliad-lenght crypto keys even before you've finished generating them, that's the nature of quantum computing. Resitance is therefore, futile.

    1. Re:Many died of unstoppable laughter in Langley. by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Citation Needed

  10. only a requirement to have a password by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    is usually the only reason i have one. passwords are the inter-nets TSA.

  11. Still only an hour to guess. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you use a 4 word diceword password and the NSA is really capable of 1 trillion guesses per second it will only take them 3,656 seconds (1hr, 56 sec) to guess it.

    7776^4/10^12 = 3656

    1. Re:Still only an hour to guess. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your math is incorrect... try again.

  12. Better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    grab a random book off your shelf if you have one.

    Flip to a random page.

    Circle a series of connected letters diagonally down, left, right. Snaky word search style.

    Use it. Ever forget it? the book is on the shelf.

  13. "I've got the same combination on my luggage!" by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Space - Balls - The - Lunchbox

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  14. 6 sided dice? by 31eq · · Score: 5, Informative

    makepassphrase()
    {
    # Requires GNU sort
    grep -vF "'s" /usr/share/dict/words |
    sort -R --random-source=/dev/urandom | head -${1-5} |
    while read word
    do
    printf "%s " "$word"
    done
    echo
    }

    1. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great unless the NSA have compromised the RNG.

    2. Re:6 sided dice? by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      The physical dice are there to provide true randomness. Diceware actually recommends casino dice. In fact, they explicitly say: Do not use a computer program or electronic dice generator.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    3. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a few too many weird words in that dictionary for my liking:

      ~> grep -vF "'s" /usr/share/dict/words | sort -R --random-source=/dev/urandom | head -5
      Plympton
      tekkie
      echoencephalograms
      éloge
      hemistichal

    4. Re:6 sided dice? by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      xkcd to the rescue again. Try this:

      makepassphrase()
      {
      return 4; // Chosen by fair dice roll. Guaranteed to be random
      }

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    5. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I occasionally use a script very much like this to generate initial user passphrases for local accounts for real people. I have to manually read through the list of passphrases generated to catch offensive words or phrases. It's the phrases that are hardest to see, and there's almost always one in a list of twenty users. The best part is /user/share/dict/words has a lot more than 8000 words.

    6. Re:6 sided dice? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      sort -R --random-source=/dev/urandom

      I think you meant /dev/random, which gives you more entropy per bit. urandom is a PRNG on top of random, which gives fast throughput. urandom is also the default random source of sort.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    7. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      echodenseness contemptuously registering moots cauterized

      It's like a digital tarot or something

    8. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grep: /usr/share/dict/words: No such file or directory

      Nice try, though.

    9. Re:6 sided dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand the -${1-5} argument to 'head'

  15. change your username by jd142 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I forget where I first read it, but this sounds like a good workaround. Pick a nice secure-as-you-want password. But each website gets a different username. It sounds like most attacks are of the kind "joe_bob uses P4$$word on amazon, let's see if joe_bob uses P4$$word on this banking site too." They don't seem to be looking to see if joe_bob_amazon is the same account as joe_bob_wellsfargo. Or you could be joe_a_bob and joe_wf_bob.

    Even better is if you have some control over your email accounts. They are probably smart enough to see joe.bob@gmail is j.o.e.bob@gmail(although that does let you filter incoming mail a little easier). But if you have control over the domain you have a catch all address and be me_amazon@myplace.com and me_wellsfargo@myplace.com.

    1. Re:change your username by khasim · · Score: 1

      Seconded on the different email addresses. And you don't have to own your own domain for that. Just make some random'ish gmail account and use that ONCE for more secure requirements (like your bank).

      The trick is to prepare them in advance. And write them down in a PHYSICALLY secure location.

      If you're using the same email account for your bank as you use on Facebook then your security could be improved.

    2. Re:change your username by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I use Spamgourmet for (www.spamgourmet.com) -- the addresses I hand out to *everyone* are like
      BestBuy.twinkie@xoxy.net

      I can see if Best Buy sold my name to someone. I can turn off the "Delta" address (I don't need a plane ticket every week!), and turn it back on when I book a ticket...

      Plus, I can remap the source address to work/home/whatever when I change jobs/email providers/whatever...

    3. Re:change your username by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gmail will send joe.bob@gmail.com joe.bob+amazon@gmail.com joe.bob+wellsfargo@gmail.com all to the same account. Rather useful for mail filters too.

  16. or watch out for snakes... by dickens · · Score: 1

    well.. there's also watchout4snakes. I think it succeeds at being memorable more often with some tuning choosing the parts of speech and the commonness of each

  17. And anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the NSA does not need to guess your passwords. The malware that they require the major tech vendors to bake into their products just sends your passwords directly to the NSA before they are encrypted.

    For the nay-sayers, remember that the NSA was already caught red-handed doing exactly this with routers. There is every reason to believe that they do this with major OSes as well.

    1. Re:And anyway... by praxis · · Score: 2

      First you claim that they use malware to send my plaintext passwords to themselves. Then you claim they have been caught red-handed doing the first claim...by compromising networking equipment which never sees my plaintext passwords.

      I understand your point, but your claims are rather incongruous.

    2. Re:And anyway... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the increasingly common SSL compromise and MITM attack. Some workplaces do it deliberately to their employees (out of industrial espionage paranoia) and do not understand that they are only one incident away from being fucked over by the legal department of a major bank.

  18. D6? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I'll only use my lucky D20.

    1. Re:D6? by hpa · · Score: 1

      With D20s you'd only need three rolls per word (20^3 = 8000).

  19. stupidly weak by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Yes, use 100% dictionary words. That's a great idea. The idea of a passphrase is to make it so many letters, brute forcing won't work. But dictionary attacks don't have to be individual words. They can easily be combinations of all known dictionary words without having a ridiculous result set to try compared to random letters. So what you need to do is come up with multiple words that you can remember then put a number or two between them. DO NOT replace e with 3 or a with @ or S with $, as those are known and common attack possibilities too. So if you choose "chickenisdelicious7nomnomnom" nobody will ever, ever, ever figure that out. If you choose "chickensandwichwaffles" it could get reverse via dictionary phrase attack in under a second.

    1. Re:stupidly weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a dictionary word should be treated as a single character. If you mix up the separators or capitalization you've added some extra bits. But "cap liz donna demon self" should be treated as secure as "1 2 3 4 5".

    2. Re:stupidly weak by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, use 100% dictionary words. That's a great idea. The idea of a passphrase is to make it so many letters, brute forcing won't work. But dictionary attacks don't have to be individual words. They can easily be combinations of all known dictionary words without having a ridiculous result set to try compared to random letters. So what you need to do is come up with multiple words that you can remember then put a number or two between them. DO NOT replace e with 3 or a with @ or S with $, as those are known and common attack possibilities too. So if you choose "chickenisdelicious7nomnomnom" nobody will ever, ever, ever figure that out. If you choose "chickensandwichwaffles" it could get reverse via dictionary phrase attack in under a second.

      It's only stupidly weak if you don't follow the stupidly simple instructions involving using a die roll to choose random words. Using the 7700 word dictionary they recommend and 5 words gives 64 bits of password entropy. Granted, that's much less than the 144 bits of entropy you provided in your 28 character alphanumeric password, but still no one is going to brute force 2^63 bits in a few seconds.

    3. Re:stupidly weak by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      No.

      There are 10 digits, there are (in this list) 7.7k dictionary words.

      If you tell a hacker "my password is 5 digits" - they have 10^5 keys to test, or 100000.
      If you tell them "my password is 5 words" they have 7700^5 keys to test, or 2.7 * 10^19 - which is more than twice as hard to crack as an 19-digit password, which again is 10 trillion times as hard as your 5 digit password.

      It's just math, people. You don't have to rely on hand-rules like "dictionary words are bad."

    4. Re:stupidly weak by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      No, it gives you about 5 bits. That's because 1 letter vs 1 word is practically the same thing as far as checking difficulty and generation difficulty and programs can treat whole words as 1 item while brute forcing. To try every word in English with every variation in case sizing takes less than a second. Checking every combination of 2 words in English is harder but still under a second. Once you get to three words, it's probably between a few seconds and a few minutes but the list to check is still pathetically short compared to if they were random letters.

    5. Re:stupidly weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you choose "chickenisdelicious7nomnomnom" nobody will ever, ever, ever figure that out.

      How'd you get my password?!

    6. Re:stupidly weak by Xrikcus · · Score: 2

      Your first word is 7 digits your second is 3, so clearly one is stronger than the other. "nom" is not in the diceware set, which helps a little, but it isn't so uncommon to be in a search dictionary. The numbers are in the diceware set.

      You're comparing 7700^3 against 7700^7. Your more secure password isn't any better than chickensandwichwafflesworkcraigcrossafrica, probably a lot less good because chicken, delicious and nom clearly correlate heavily and nomnomnom is almost one word really. 7700^7 is 1604852326685300000000000000 according to my calculator. If I assume 72 characters (52 letters, 10 numbers, 10 special characters) then I need a 15 character random password to beat it in terms of search space. Maybe this: }&X$0ueUo~ravx&.

      Further, if you put numbers between your letters you are turning a search space of 7700 into 7710 or whatever. If you replace l with 1 and so on, you are surely turning 7700 into 7700*(number of replacement options and combinations thereof). So mathematically, I would think that replacing e with 3, a with @ would actually be a stronger encoding that what you suggest.

    7. Re:stupidly weak by vux984 · · Score: 1

      1 letter vs 1 word is not practically the same thing. There are 26 letters 10000 words in the average dictionary for this purpose.

      a 6 word passphrase chosen randomly from a 10k word dictionary; is essentially choosing 6 letters at random from a 10,000 letter alphabet.

      6 random dictionary words, spelled correctly, single space between them, is as secure as selecting 16 letters randomly. (10^24 possibilities) about 80 bits that's pretty reasonable.

      And much easier to remember.

      And its actually several orders of magnitude more secure than that if your attacker doesn't know your password generation method; which in most cases they don't.

    8. Re:stupidly weak by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      No, a single character (on a primarily Latin-based writing system, anyway) can represent between 2^6 and 2^7 possibilities, which is not coincidentally the size of the ASCII set.

      The 7776 words in this dictionary comes to not quite 2^13.

      So a random dictionary word should be treated as about 2 *random* characters. Of course memorable passwords are not typically composed of random characters, so it's better than 2 actual characters.

      "1 2 3 4 5" is itself a likely example of a dictionary phrase, so you defeated your own point -- by your own logic, that's one character.

    9. Re:stupidly weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are looking at it wrong. Each word you select is 1/7776. When you consider that brute forcing this is just building combinations our of the word list there is no additional value from a 1 char word or a 15 character word. So, assuming the minumum word length is 3 chars and you choose at random 7 words you will have at the very least a string that looks like this: "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" or 27 chars length. Thats the shortest password you would have generated; if the words chosen would be longer than the minimum length you would have a much longer password. Even at the minimum length of 27 chars, you are looking at a maximum combination of 1.7190708e+27. Where you to just use a-zA-Z0-9~!@#$%^&*()_+ you could have the same level of brute force complexity with 15 chars.

      You are wasting a pretty substantial portion of value for each character you need to type by using a word list like this.

    10. Re:stupidly weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are comparing a 5 character (digit) password to an (assuming minimum chars is 3 on any word on that list) "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" 19 character password -- drastically more characters if you do not roll lucky and only select the shorter char words. So at any number of words (including 1) the minimum characters to type those words as the password can create a much stronger password just by using a-zA-Z0-9~!@#$%^&*()_+.

      Pick one word from the list, the minimum chars is 3. That word is brute forcible with 7776 combinations. a random password with 3 chars from the char pool above is brute forcible from 421875 combinations.
      Pick two words from the list, the minimum chars is 6 (with no spaces). That word is brute forcible with 60466176 combinations. a random password with 6 char from the char pool above is brute forcible from 177978515625 combinations.

      The word list being 7776 items long seems like an advantage as for as complexity, but understanding that each word has a length and when you take that into consideration that complexity is always less than can be produced using just a subset of 75 chars from ascii per char.

    11. Re:stupidly weak by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You are looking at it wrong.

      No. I'm not. You disagreed with me, and then made exactly the same argument I did. I even agreed that 6 word passwords was equal to roughly 16 characters. So what are you arguing with me for? Reread my post.

      Even at the minimum length of 27 chars, you are looking at a maximum combination of 1.7190708e+27. Where you to just use a-zA-Z0-9~!@#$%^&*()_+ you could have the same level of brute force complexity with 15 chars.

      I know that. The advantage of a 6 word password over shit like this:a-zA-Z0-9~!@#$ is that you can actually easily remember it; and most of us can type it faster too despite the longer length.

      You are wasting a pretty substantial portion of value for each character you need to type by using a word list like this.

      Are we that tight on RAM or something? Its easier to remember and faster to type and just as secure. Who cares if its extra 16 bytes?

    12. Re:stupidly weak by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      The argument above was "dictionary words are bad because of dictionary attack."

      Guess what? If you happen to pick 5 3-letter words by chance, that's 15 characters, which is 1.6 * 10^21 possible combinations. If you're trying a brute-force attack, it's even worse than the dictionary attack, which is still unfeasible.

      Yeah, line-noise is going to be harder to check through than a restricted set. But good luck committing "Xm2fHi0`IU@r0:$" to memory as easily as "bye flo ice oaf jim"

      Y'all learn something about information theory before you try to talk about passwords again, okay?

    13. Re:stupidly weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think through how you actually spell this in your brain and then rethink that complexity argument:
      !@#$%^&*()

      "explanationathashdollarpercentcaretamphersandasteriskopenbracketclosebracket" or whatever localisation you prefer.

      Then transliterate from your memory of that phrase, to your fingers. Does the fact that it was only 10 characters long actually save you any complexity for anyone who isn't a first time computer user staring at the keyboard for each character? Typing words is what we do, so we can do it quickly and with little thought for most people.

  20. I use one of these doohickies on my keychain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only have to remember a single rule to dial in my passwords based on the website/company.

    https://www.tindie.com/products/Russtopia/pss-password-generatorrecall-keyfob/

  21. Ultimate Security Risk: Carry PW in your pocket! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    "You should write your new passphrase down on a piece of paper and carry it with you "

    Boy, that is NOT a security risk, is it? Of course, you always hide your hands under a towel when you enter the PW, right?

    That keeps your screen's 'selfie' camera from allowing reading the key clicks off of the reflection on your cornea. Good, right?

    Pick the start of the sentence or book title you have on your shelf all the time to serve as a reminder and PW source or a short sentence on a card in your wallet.

  22. 60,466,176 passphrases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long would it take to brute-force test all of them even before reverting to brute-force guessing on a character basis?

    1. Re: 60,466,176 passphrases? by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      'A trillion guesses per second':

      7776 ** 1 / 1e12 = 0,008 microseconds
      7776 ** 2 / 1e12 = 0,060 milliseconds.
      7776 ** 3 / 1e12 = 470 milliseconds
      7776 ** 4 / 1e12 = 61 minutes
      7776 ** 5 / 1e12 = 329 days

      That's for brute-forcing every combination. On average, you only need to brute-force half of them, so halve those numbers.

      So yes, the shorter ones can be weak to a dictionary attack as you say.

      That being said, I think that while a trillion guesses per second may be plausible, if a situation where the attacker can bruteforce that fast were to occur, the site has had at least two security vulnerabilities been taken advantage of: weak password hashing, and the vulnerability they used to download the users table.

      The problems with diceware are that a big chunk of those words don't even sound like English ('69er', '1600', 'lu', 'zc', 'viva', '101st', 'pang', 'ijk') because they were chosen to be short, and that having the five-word passphrase necessary for some decent protection is still a lengthy 25-character passphrase you wouldn't want to keep typing ten times a day just to unlock the screensaver.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
  23. Will stick with my PassPhrase Generator by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    I'll stick with my script, that generates strings based on passphrases :-)
    cap liz donna demon self ---> ÍÅÏÜvÉ?#{c?>î/Û'7£Ûó¾n>Vî

    Of course, here on slashdot that string will get reamed (6 characters removed), as not only does slashdot not do Unicode or UTF-8, it can't even handle upper-ansi characters properly either.

  24. How about... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    A site dependent key to your phrase?

    Base: correcthorsebatterystaple
    Site specific(first thrid and fifth chars of the domain (sah for slashdot.org)): sahcorrecthorsebatterystaple

    Seems pretty ironclad even if the password gets exposed. I guess someone who really wanted *your* particular password could figure out the method but all of those things coming into alignment seems like the edge of edgiest cases.

    The biggest problem I see is that a lot of the sites that really should have the most secure passwords (banks, etc) limit length for some unthinkable reason.

    1. Re:How about... by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      So the bad guy just got the password database from hacking slashdot and sees your password is sahcorrecthorsebatterystaple. The bad guy pulls up another password leak from hellokittyislandadventure.com, and sees an account with the same email address uses the password hlocorrecthorsebatterystaple as a password. It's entirely possible they'll figure it out given enough data points. You're right that it's an edge case, since nowadays the bad guys aren't doing much of that since there are so many users using "letmein" and "Password1", so you have to make a decision. Given the number of places you're reusing your password strategy, your knowledge (or lack thereof) of trends in identity theft via password leaks, and the value you place in your online identity, is it worth using password management software instead of memorizing a password algorithm?

      In favor of password managers, when banks do stupid stuff like that you can use the software to make truly random passwords that follow those requirements. No need to modify your algorithm to fit within stupid restrictions.

    2. Re:How about... by mattventura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would they go through the trouble of reverse enigneering your password system when there's thousands of other people who just use the same exact password everywhere? Unless someone is trying to specifically target you, it's usually sufficient to simply not be the low-hanging fruit. In case of these large password leaks, what they're probably doing is something like this:
      1. Take every username (or email) and password combination
      2. Through automated means, check if they are valid on other websites
      3. Record the ones that worked and abuse/sell those as well.

    3. Re:How about... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Good points, a single point of access to all of my passwords and the sites they go to makes me uneasy though.

      I guess it's kind of moot anyway because people who actually think about password security in the slightest are very unlikely to have problems unless they are high profile and people are actively seeking for ways into their specific accounts.

      It would seem like there would be a standard that all websites could adhere to instead of whatever the whim of the security guy is.

    4. Re:How about... by hatemonger · · Score: 2

      Yes, "don't outrun the bear; outrun your companion" is a fair strategy in computer security. But if you're made of particularly juicy and delicious man-meats (which would be analogous to having your name be Brian Krebs or Jennifer Lawrence or being a Google employee or having a three letter twitter handle), some bears might decide that it's worth a little extra effort to run you down instead. It's a personal decision as to how much effort you're willing to put into protecting your online identity.

  25. "7,776 English words" by Fortran+IV · · Score: 1

    aj bq cccc dhabi exxon fmc ... zx ##

    Yeah, lots of English there.

    --
    I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
  26. Is this an NSA-sponsored drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to make users go with one and the same password everywhere?

  27. Epic Failure by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    You should write your new passphrase down on a piece of paper and carry it with you for as long as you need.

    Whole point of this news article = pointless.

    1. Re:Epic Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used the noun form of the verb "to fail" correctly. A most rare sight these days.

  28. Assuming fair dice by hawguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    This procedure assumes fair, unbiased dice. For years, the NSA has required precise machining of dice to generate predictable rolls. Once someone cracks the code, Casinos will lose billions.

    What, other than precision machining, would explain why plastic dice with a materials cost of pennies cost over $2/each?

    1. Re:Assuming fair dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Effective marketing, packaging costs, and the common sense that customers are unlikely to scoff at cost when the price is $2.00

      Pretty funny conspiracy theory though

  29. Re:How about...Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle passwords won't let you use two letters the same in a row !
    Why limit the search space?
    Idiots !

    The dictionary brute force just removes all words with double letters and has a smaller search space.

  30. mnemonics by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is remember a SYSTEM. One system for turning some known information into a password.

    Lets say you want a password of Slashdot and you username is someuselessshithead15 .

    A simple password could sD!sUSH15

    The system I just made up is the first letter of word in the name of the site. Nouns are all capitalized. An exclamation point to seperate the name of the site from the screen name. And the screen name is written the same way as the name of the site with only the first letter of every word in the user name with nouns capitalized.

    If I know that the name of the site is Slashdot and my username is someuselessshithead15 then I automatically know what my password is and that password is site specific.

    Don't like that system? That isn't the point you myopic fucks... the point is to have "A" system. I pulled that one out of my ass... you can come up with a different one.

    You can use the same system on every single fucking site and it is quite unlikely that anyone is going to figure it out.

    If you want to be extra sneaky you can do something like instead of capitalizing nouns you can list nouns as their number in the alphabet. So instead of sD!sUSH15 you'd get s4!s22198

    Seriously... no on is guessing that shit and it can be unique to each site. Even if you use the same screen name just having that seemingly random bit on the front of it is going to defeat anything but a serious attack.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:mnemonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do this, but my method depended on the URL and through mergers, rebrandings, and bringing an outsourced product inhouse (maybe a website used to use a 3rd party for their online sales, so it was really an account with the 3rd party, but then they started doing it internally and imported the accounts) many of my passwords don't work.

      I've given up and just use a password database. OwnClowd/SyncThing/Dropbox + KeePass works great. LastPass is another option I hear a lot.

    2. Re:mnemonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really should at least read XKCD before you make yourself look stupid. A password like that is trivially easy for a computer to guess, especially with modern hardware. You are patting yourself on the back for making it easier for software to crack any one of your passwords.

      And it doesn't matter if you use different passwords on different sites or not. You are not that important. The hackers and their scripts just look for shitty passwords (like yours) on any given site and then see what they can do with it. They don't care who you actually are.

    3. Re:mnemonics by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I suspect a dictionary attack will go through that faster than your calculation would suggest.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:mnemonics by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That works too. I don't need to use it though.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:mnemonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew how a dictionary attack actually worked you would know how stupid that statement is. You should try reading up on something before writing a comment here, you could spare yourself another round of foot-in-mouth.

  31. Roll 1 2 3 4 5 by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

    Word was 'apathy"

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  32. An odd, antiquated approach by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    As someone who dabbles in genealogy, one approach I've used for creating hard-to-crack yet easy-to-remember passphrases is to base them on one or more of my ancestors who have unusual, antiquated names. (Any genealogist will memorize those without even trying.) Of course, to make these passphrases harder to crack, you can throw in numbers such as their birth year, capitalize certain letters from a small memorized list, add your favorite symbol, etc.

    I don't have any way to prove that this really works, but those odd old names seem unlikely to appear in any corpus of common passwords.

  33. Obligatory XKCD by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

    https://xkcd.com/538/

    If they can't afford enough computer to crack your passphrase, they can still afford a $5 wrench

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      https://xkcd.com/538/

      If they can't afford enough computer to crack your passphrase, they can still afford a $5 wrench

      If they can't afford someone to reply to the correct article, they can still afford a $5 wench.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah dummy, because every person who gains possession of your electronics has the means to do that. Your logic is stupid. "Well, a big person could muscle my password out of me, so I might as well use an insecure password."

    3. Re:Obligatory XKCD by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Could the xkcd guy renew his cartoons from time to time? (we've seen this one about 123456 times)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Obligatory XKCD by chgros · · Score: 1

      I think this xkcd is even more relevant:
      https://xkcd.com/936/

    5. Re:Obligatory XKCD by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1
      They have to find you and determine if you are worth their trouble first.
      1. Bank President, NORAD commander, etc. -> worth doing
      2. typical Slashdotter ->not worth doing.
  34. Single password with variations by Red+Herring · · Score: 1

    Rather than that one, long, randomly generated password that then gets used on every site (or few passwords over many sites), I use a standard password, and modify it for each site. For instance, my slashdot pass might be horsebattery!SLASHDOT!staple, while my bank might be horsebattery!CHASE!staple. Easy to remember, and stealing the password from one site won't help on another.

    (Yes, a person looking at the data might be able to figure it out, but I figure that unless I'm personally being targeted that would be very very unlikely. And, in reality, I have both different logins and base passwords that I use on high vs low security sites, so stealing my slahsdot user/pass would not work on my bank, or credit cards, or at work.)

    --
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    1. Re:Single password with variations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      horsebattery!GMAIL!staple

      dox you mutha fucka

    2. Re:Single password with variations by jtgd · · Score: 1

      I print out a 16x16 grid of random characters and tape it to my monitor. The password is the path through the grid. Uses a different part of your brain, much easier to remember. Quite random.

      --
      J
  35. correct horse battery staple by geekier · · Score: 1

    horse : "that is a battery staple"

    me : "correct!"

  36. GREAT IDEA! by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Thanks for compiling a character sequence list and explaining the algorithm...

  37. What the NSA can't guess... by ark1 · · Score: 1

    the CIA can get with a rubber-hose.

    1. Re:What the NSA can't guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck to them, I'm a masochist.

  38. Restrictive workplace policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My workplace requires 8 character passwords. No capitals or symbols, minimum 1 number, minimum 1 letter. 26*10*36^6 10,000 combinations. God help us if an attacker obtains a copy of the password database, but their crazy lockout policy (only 3 incorrect attempts locks the account and requires a call to the outsourced IT in India) probably makes it pretty secure from outside attacks.

    1. Re:Restrictive workplace policy by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      only 3 incorrect attempts locks the account and requires a call to the outsourced IT in India

      I think we can safely say that such a system will completely eliminate brute force password-guessing attacks. What's Hindi for "social engineering"?

      Meanwhile, any suggestions for what to say to an IT department who, every time a phishing message comes round saying:

      "Your account may have been compromised, please go to <a href="http://blackhats.phish.ru">www.youremployer.com</a> to confirm your security details."

      ...respond by sending round a message saying

      "if you think you may be affected, please go to <a href="https://www.youremployer.com">www.youremployer.com;</a> to confirm your security details."

      ...because the people who fall for these know how to spot a dodgey hyperlink, right?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:Restrictive workplace policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can safely say that such a system will completely eliminate brute force password-guessing attacks. What's Hindi for "social engineering"?

      Well, if an attacker can manage to get the password file (shadow? sam database? It's a windows domain, but idk what the backend is) through a remote execution exploit on a backend server then the entirety companies passwords are known in an evening. Maybe this is one of the least likely scenarios, but an easy way to prepare for it is require passwords that aren't terrible.

      "if you think you may be affected, please go to <a href="https://www.youremployer.com">www.youremployer.com;</a> to confirm your security details."

      ...because the people who fall for these know how to spot a dodgey hyperlink, right?

      Oh, they do that, too >_

  39. One thing I don't get by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Ok, if I'm writing a webapp that accepts a password, presumeably if I wanted to increase security somewhat I would put in a guessing rate limiter.
    5 strikes and you're out (for a while).

    So assuming (a reasonable assumption still in most cases, I hope) that the adversary does not have the file of password hashes, how exactly do they try the trillion guesses per second?

    Explain please. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:One thing I don't get by Asgard · · Score: 1

      Lacking access to the password data base AND assuming a rate-limiter, the attacker can't realistically try a brute-force.

      However, most of the time the password list is exposed in some way and attacked offline to get the original passwords.

  40. Prepare to restore from backup often by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    someone who physically possesses the token has three guesses of my unlocking passphrase before the token locks itself forever and zeroes out the stored keyfile

    If fat-fingering your passphrase thrice will make your data permanently inaccessible, then you better have damn good backups and a damn good data plan with which to restore them when and where you need your data.

    1. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a third option: An admin passphrase that is a lot longer than my user passphrase, but had more retry attempts. That way, if the short passphrase gets typoed, I can still unlock the device with the admin one.

      You are right about backups... that is why I have three of the USB tokens, just in case.

    2. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the kids locked my wife out of her iPhone. She put on a password, not thinking it through. The kids kept trying to get in past all the warnings and such, and not reading anything they were doing. It was only after it stopped letting them try to log in that they gave up. I didn't put a password on my phone because the version of Android I'm using makes 911 a 1-click when you are on the login screen. After having to say "sorry misdial" a few times (can't just hang up when you realize what happened, or the police come looking for you), I removed the password, so that 911 isn't a single click away.

    3. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I have a even simpler option. Use a pass phrase that you can easily remember. Now before you use that pass phrase, pass it through an encryption program that will encrypt it in the same manner every time. Then use that encrypted content as the actual password. Now that encryption is done locally on the fly and it never passes across the internet nor is it stored any where, except locally. By the addition of one step it becomes very complex whilst still in reality being easy to remember. When you want to access the password, simply type in your easy to remember phrase, access the encrypted password and preferably cut and paste it in. You could use a separate encrypted password for every site all actually based upon you one preferred password, each encrypted password being different based upon including the site name into the encryption algorithm. You could build all of this into the browser, so you only need a local master password to access many different sites with many different passwords. This could be a core function of web browsers, rather than an add on. So 'easytoremeberpassword' becomes '23d5n039tn310(ME))()@JFjfjfs@#%NFI@' now good luck with that. It works better because password checking programs could double the processing time between each failed password attempt (it doesn't tale make attempts to slow the process way down) and if they have the password, when text recognition programs try to figure out that it is the password and not just another failed encrypted pass, simply fail to recognise when they have the password.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are Web extensions that do exactly that. They take your password coupled with the site name, hash it with an algorithm, and spit out a usable password. Since it re-generates the same exact hash (assuming you use an identical master password), one gets a secure password and virtually no way an attacker can figure out what generated it.

    5. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but even if the hash seems hard to any human being, the way it was generated doesn't use enough entropy. Using the website fqdn or whatever combination reduces significantly the entropy, coupled with your master password in a predictable way and then generating the hash isn't sufficient at my humble opinion to say this is a secure way to generate a password. In particular, if someone has access to the resulting hash for many different sites. The result must be predictable, hence, the combination of the orignal factors cannot change.

      This isn't better than a long passphrase.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      When you cut and paste, the length and hence complexity will significantly increase ie a 15 character password can become a 128 character password. Now should that become default, the entered password no longer needs to be characters at all but can be a straight up bit stream of significant length. They then of course need access to your device to break down your password.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Prepare to restore from backup often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is when you beat the snot out of the kids. And, depending on how long the lock out is, their allowance goes towards the cost of replacing the phone until it's covered.

  41. Risk by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    What's at risk is often forgotten, every web site wants you to register just to post a fucking one line comment on a story. I use a junk email and a fixed password for all of them. Even if someone cracks it, all I have lost is a registration I didn't want in the first place.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Risk by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      For all those sites, I use 1234 or similar. Who cares if someone takes over my Slashdot account? It wouldn't help them do anything. So all my "post only" accounts (Medium and such) are easy. Forums get another. Anything with financial info (PayPal, Banks) has a unique password, and email is as secure as the banks.

  42. After you destroy that piece of paper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just pray you don't suffer a transient ischemic attack that destroys your memory of the passphrase.

  43. Character limit because time limit by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is no technical reason why password length should be restricted

    Other than that a user has to finish accurately typing the passphrase on a mobile device's on-screen keyboard before the CSRF key for the login form times out.

  44. not a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is dumb, Why don't I just brute force every combination of 4,5,6 and 7 consecutive words from this list?

    1. Re:not a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking. If a password generation algorithm becomes well known and commonly used, it becomes easier to defeat. You now know the password is a combination of known words in a.. *gulp* published list! All you did was simply the problem.

    2. Re:not a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you do that and get back to us when you are half way through... in 27 million years.

    3. Re:not a great idea by suutar · · Score: 1

      Go for it. that's 1.7 * 10^27 possibilities for the 7 word set. At 1 trillion (aka 10^12) tries per second it'll only take a quadrillion seconds, or 30 million years.

    4. Re:not a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while you are typing in a minimum of 27 characters (assuming you randomly selected only three char words and use a space between them) or 36+ chars on average with a random selection for those 7 words, I will be happy as a clam typing in 14 chars from a-zA-Z0-9[+special chars] while enjoying a harder to brute force password. Especially considering that I can also use mnemonics to remember that 14 char password without typing in every character in a word that was used.

       

  45. Write it down? by houghi · · Score: 1

    So what I need to do is to write it down and have it with me? What if I loose it? Or change my pants? And I have to change it every month at work, so I better just write it down on a post-it and put it on my screen.

    And what about the fact that I need about 47 different ones, because it is not safe to use the same one twice,. And some can not be longer than 8 characters. And some need numbers. ANd some neet to be 10 caracters with at least two numbers.

    Please come back with a solution not for one password, but for the multitude of logins, passwords and pincodes I need to remember.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Write it down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, how important is it that your netflix account have an ultra secure password? In the physical world, they put vaults around money and security systems around wealth. My house has an "average" lock on it because I haven't found it necessary to build a house ready for "The Purge." Sure, I'd be safer with a fort house but is it practical? Necessary? Online security needs to be measured against importance and value and not against paranoia. If we lived our physical lives the way online security experts want us to live our virtual lives, we'd live in anonymous bubbles and never come into contact with people.

  46. Re: Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possibl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You laugh, but song lyrics make for great passwords with a little teasing (symbols, etc). They're massively long and easily memorized. That's a perfect starting point for a good password.

  47. this is totally insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of single digit characters based in the base 128 realm, we are using passwords based on base 7,776 realm perhaps with spaces between each character.

    NSA has no trouble expanding single digit characters to entire words.

    Passphrases are no more secure than regular passwords except potentially from brute force at home attacks.

    NSA has a variety of ways to steal passwords including as transmitted over HTTP where GET and POST and Cookie data is nabbed (They nab 100% traffic, 80% traffic world wide).

    They have van eck phreaking, where they nab the signals from your input device remotely typically from satellites.

    They have also perfected neural decoders and pull out your memory direct from your brain from space by monitoring brainwave emissions.

    The air gap is very powerful. It takes super conducting magnet shields surrounding you to block interferometry and building penetrating tomography technologies.

    Remember, Snowden was a low level noob. drrobertduncan.com

    1. Re:this is totally insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7776 is roughly 80x larger space than the printable ASCII character set. Thus one word offers 80x more security than 1 ASCII character. But 6 words offers only about the same security as 12 ASCII characters.

    2. Re:this is totally insecure by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The problem sits in the dictionary attacks. There have been crackers out there on GPU for years that combine wordlists and partial words to guess passwords. Few crackers (if you have a large amount of hashes to crack) will still guess all combinations from a to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. They'll take existing dictionaries, recombine them in 1->n words where combined words 16 characters, even substitute leetspeak characters. If your password 8 characters you're pretty much screwed already, 12-16 characters is still acceptable if the words aren't too common, 24 is the new gold standard.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  48. Not the NSA guessing that I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the fact they have means to get to my data without ever needing to figure out my password.

  49. Re: Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possibl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the chorus from that Police song - de do do do de da da da is 152 bits.

  50. brute force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait... if you restrict the space to 5 words from the list 7,776, isnt that 7776^5 possibilities? if the entity brute forcing passwords chooses combinations from the list too, that seems an easy to break password to me...

    1. Re:brute force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ((2^7776)-1) * 5

  51. Fucking Useless by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "7,776 English words"

    So, less than 1/40th of the English Language.

    What a short surface for a dictionary attack.

    Slashdot needs to get some real people with REAL technical capability on-board. Timothy obviously can't figure out that HughPickens.com is a complete fucking idiot that can't determine whether or not the stories are worth a fuck for reporting (plus, the fag is shilling in his username alone.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Fucking Useless by suutar · · Score: 1

      7776^7 possibilities (in a seven word phrase) is a "small surface"? That's 15 million years to brute force, on average; what duration are you looking for?

    2. Re:Fucking Useless by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Who has a 7 word phrase password (that's ~56 characters of random words that do not make sense). Most password systems won't even accept that and mistype one character and you have to start over again. As comparison 56 characters is the length of this string. The moment you start making sense between words, it gets even easier to crack.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Fucking Useless by suutar · · Score: 1

      hmmm. Well, I was going to say I did, but on reflection they do tend more to be 6 words instead.

    4. Re:Fucking Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have the same complexity by using 14 chars of a-zA-Z0-9[specials]. Random selection of 7 words from that list seems to avg out to 32 characters worth of password. So yeah you can type 14 chars or 36 chars and be about the same surface area irt dictionary attacks. Yay.

    5. Re:Fucking Useless by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " That's 15 million years to brute force, on average; what duration are you looking for?"

      My 15-character password would take 157 billion years to crack.

      Your 15 million years is a laugh.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Fucking Useless by suutar · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. That implies that you're using 15.9 bit characters, or pretty much all of unicode. How do you manage that?

    7. Re:Fucking Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not even using Unicode. That's just AlphaNumeric. No repeating characters, no consecutive usage of letters, consonants, vowels, or numbers, a symbol thrown in for good measure.

      ~Khyber because mobile is broken as fuck.

  52. There is a huge flaw to this.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting approach, but I see one flaw: If this sort of technique be comes common, wouldn't an attacker just need to know what word list you 'rolled' your password on and then can just brute force all the password combinations from that list?

    Example, pretend that you had to pick a password for a new website that only allows all uppercase English characters, with no numbers or symbols allowed (just to keep the math simple). A normal ten character password gives an attacker 26^10 possibilities to try.

    Your lets say that your diceware generated password picks 6 words from a list of 1000 words, and each word is 4 characters in length. If you skip white space, conventional wisdom would say that your password is 26^24 possibilities to guess via brute force.

    But because this has become a common trend in password generation, or because the attacker is the NSA and have been watching what you read, they know you used this list. They don't bother to try all the combinations, just all the combinations of the words on this list. This gives them only 1000^4 possibilities to try. As it happens (yeah, my example is rigged), this is exactly 1 trillion possibilities, which if they were guessing at the rate suggested in TFA, would take them exactly one second to break via brute force.

    Essentially, you are replacing individual characters with words to make a long password easier to recall. There is no reason why an attacker cannot do the same thing, mapping one 'alphabet' of symbols onto another.

    Now, some people might point out that there are some things you can do to mix things up a bit and force an attacker to have to dig deeper, but my point is that this might actually make it much simpler for a smart/informed attacker to brute force a password.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:There is a huge flaw to this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your lets say that your diceware generated password picks 6 words from a list of 1000 words

      Except the list of words isn't 1000, it's 7776. Those additional 6776 words vastly increases the number of combinations.

      This gives them only 1000^4 possibilities to try. As it happens (yeah, my example is rigged), this is exactly 1 trillion possibilities, which if they were guessing at the rate suggested in TFA, would take them exactly one second to break via brute force.

      And using the full 7776 list of words, that's 3,656,158,440,062,976 possibilities, which at 1 trillion guesses per second, takes a hair over an hour. Which doesn't buy you anything, but add another word, and.. well, TFS already covered 5 and 6 word combinations.

    2. Re:There is a huge flaw to this.... by suutar · · Score: 1

      Math issue: 6 words from a list of 1000 is 1000^6 possibilities, not 1000^4, so you're looking at a million seconds rather than 1, or 11 and a half days. Not a whole lot better, but one more word makes it a billion seconds, or 31+ years. (I think you got the 4 from the number of letters per word, which as you point out is not really a relevant factor.)

    3. Re:There is a huge flaw to this.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The xkcd cartoon example covers this. The number of combinations is very large due to the size of the dictionary.

    4. Re:There is a huge flaw to this.... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Conclusion: don't use a common (i.e. diceware) word list. Create your own.

    5. Re:There is a huge flaw to this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution:

      My word list is the Oxdford English Dictionary. 13 sided die w multiplier for 1st letter and an RNG for the word.

  53. Back To The Drug Store For More Post-It Notes by westlake · · Score: 1

    Using Diceware, you end up with passphrases that look like "cap liz donna demon self", "bang vivo thread duct knob train", and "brig alert rope welsh foss rang orb".

    This is easy to remember?

    Oh, and by the way, did anyone try this out using the touch keyboard of a smartphone or tablet?

  54. Nobody got time for that by iamacat · · Score: 1

    You are not going to type a sentence every time your screen locks after 10 minutes of inactivity. The solution is really 2 factor authentication with a decent conventional 8 character password. Maybe even 3 factor - something you are (fingerprint), something you have (bluetooth-enabled phone in the pocket) and something you know (simple pin).

  55. What NOT to do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is literally an article that makes me laugh out loud as if it was sarcasm.... sadly it's not.

    DO NOT FOLLOW THIS.

    As a security researcher I will tell you that they will simply add all of those words to their lists and easily try the various combinations with ease.

    The whole point of a good password is that it's not part of any known dictionary or literary text. Seriously. No really, seriously. This method is a dictionary with only a few possible words per try. SUPER easy to automate the cracking of these with a GPU running purely this dictionary set.

    Your best password is still a random string of garbage digits even if that is half the size of a much larger sentence of dictionary words, it's still more secure.

    So what should you do? I prefer to choose a long sentence that is very easy to remember, and then go to pick a new letter to replace the use of the space bar (like J) then you type out parts of your sentence without using space, but rather this made up character. Then you figure out how to advance this character to a new one for every space needed.

    If my password sentence was "Mary had a little lamb", I'd pick J as my space, and every space increment the character by one, or two, or whatever.

    Password becomes "MaryJhadKaLlittleMlamb", you can then easily find ways to tack other symbols or whatever to the space character.... like the first time you use it and it's a J, you surround it with 1's.... then 2's etc...

    Now my password is "0Mary1J1had2K2a3L3little4M4lamb" and is quite far from being easy to crack despite the fact that there are some dictionary words scattered about. These mental "rules" are easier to remember and they still produce a very random looking password, it's very easy to have a few different sets of "rules" that you then combine and iterate in your mind to produce super long complex passwords.

    For instance, my disk encryption password is already a long string of 70+ words from a sentence I've memorized. I then have rules quite a bit removed from the rules I shared and I use those to then build up a string of over 150 characters for the password that looks 100% random.

    Sure it's annoying to type some of these longer passwords but on my air-gapped-disk-encrypted faraday-caged NSA proof security-research laptop.... It's worth it. Oh and also I'd recommend having a webcam watch the user in front of the screen and hard power off the machine if any fast moving blobs approach the machine. (That catches say a police officer pulling a SilkRoad raid and rushing up to your laptop before you can erase the keys from memory which is their next tactic once you have secure passwords and encrypted disks.)

    Oh and F-ck the NSA. Mind your own business.

    1. Re:What NOT to do.... by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

      Uhm, if you do 10 words this way you've got over 128 bits of entropy.

      By the way if you used a 65536 word dictionary instead you could get there in 8 words.

    2. Re:What NOT to do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and in 1985 alpha+number was "ultra secure and would require the heat-life of the universe to compute"
      (then it was cracked and shown to be much weaker than we thought)

      In 1995 we added some symbols and talked about how secure MD5 hashing was.... "Would take attackers with clusters of computers 20 years, and even supercomputers can't crack it faster than 5 years. We are future-proof."
      (then MD5 flaws came out, computers got even faster than predicted, now a single system can crack these easily)

      In/around 2000 we ran off to better crypto and again talked a bunch of crap about how secure it all was....
      (then it was cracked....)

      Are you seeing a pattern here? Don't mind if I cover my ears and go "LA LA LA LA" as you talk because I've already heard what you have to say..... and the cycle shows that every single time with a 100% failure rate, you are WRONG.

      Stop literally allowing people to be harmed by telling them this crap is secure.... Honestly it's like telling grandma to leave her phone and mace at home then walk down to the bad side of town and ask for directions... It's not going to end well and you are telling people to let down their security in a warzone. Stop it.

  56. A better approach by benlwilson · · Score: 1

    What you do is come up with a sentence that is really weird (weird is easy to remember).
    eg, my cat turned out to be a dog last night

    Then use the first letter from each word and add numbers where appropriate.
    password = mcto2badln

    1. Re:A better approach by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      That's what I do for my password manager password. I use German capitalization rules (all nouns are capitalized, not just proper nouns) and numeric and special characters where appropriate. Then I have a particular obscure quote which I remember in slightly misquoted form.

      For example (NOT the one I really use of course!) "Four Score and Seven Years ago, some Mothers brought forth upon this Continent a new Nation" would be "4S&7Ya,sMb4thutCanN"

  57. Huh... by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

    My dice just came up with:

    35356
    43231
    12551
    65212
    46355

    Now I gotta look up the words, right?

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  58. A better methodology by ramriot · · Score: 1

    If you don't trust password managers and would like a way to generate unique, deterministic and hard to crack passwords. Take your 8 word diceware password and use it as the entropy for:-
    https://www.grc.com/otg/offthe...

    Which generates a 26x26 latin square. Use that with the domain name of the site and a memorable algorithm to generate a password for each site.

    Also, in the near future (from the same source) is:-
    https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl....

    You will still need your ONE strong password (or biometric) to protect the master key from which all site specific keys are generated (via the domain name), but when supported by a site it leaves nothing but a site specific public key for them to store that you use by proving that you can sign a random challenge with your site specific associated private key. So even if their database leaks it has no useful authentication data for an attacker to make use of because each sites keys are unrelated to any other. Which also means that for low value site who only need your key and nothing else to authenticate you due ti it being a two party system you are uncrackable.

  59. Wrong mode of security, useless idea by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

    The whole point in using passwords and passphrases is that the point of entry (the screen or page where you enter it) can't be reproduced millions of times per second. If a human can only press "enter" once per second, it will take a long time for a hacker (NSA or otherwise) to brute force through. If the attacker can get his hands on the password stored in the system (encrypted or not) the game is already lost.

    Besides: anyone can think up a poem or a mnemonic for a password using random letters and/or numbers, and you'll be using your own words and not those of someone else out of a dictionary (which makes it more likely for you to remember).

    Unbreakable passwords are easy to generate: just use a randomly-generated password as long as the information you're encrypting (the so called "one time pad"). When I'm logging into my bank or other on-line service, I don't want to have to deal with that much data. That's why it lets me have three tries at entering the password every ten minutes.

    Go sell this idea to the next guy, please...

    1. Re:Wrong mode of security, useless idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) This idea is not designed to protect you from 'online attacks', those are sufficiently protected.
      2) Using 'your own more memorable words' reduces the randomness many fold.
      3) This is designed to protect you in the case that an 'offline attack' with the assumption that the database contains salted hashes (though salts don't help much if you use this method). This means the database is in the hands of the attacker and they are rate limited only by their processing power.

    2. Re:Wrong mode of security, useless idea by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      1. It doesn't matter if the attack is online or not. If the hacker has your hashed password, then he can get your password from that. The brute force attack becomes feasible because he can run millions/billions of tries per second on your password. (If he does it on a repository of hashed passwords, then the rewards per try are even greater.)

      2. The words are in your memory, not in the password. If my password is "agmlpoas", then I can remember it as "all good men like pickes on afternoon sandwiches". The password can be as random as you like.

      3. When you have an organization like the NSA devoting tens of thousands of CPUs (or specially designed digital circuits implementing a hash/encryption function) to such an effort, your offline attack becomes feasible (unless you have a lot more characters in your password than most people want to type.)

      A truly unbreakable encryption method will make it impossible for an attacker to tell whether he's had success in breaking the encryption. (That's why the one-time pad works: it decodes to a very large number of potentially valid messages.) If everyone's messages were littered with words from the Bin Laden book of anarchy, then the NSA would have a more difficult time knowing who the real bad guys were. :-)

  60. Wrong - designed to pic with dice by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    You miss the point, doubling the number of words only gives you one more bit per word, but makes looking up a word from dice too hard.

    To be more specific, this dictionary is about 9 bits per word. If you used a 100,000 word webster's dictionary that's about 11 bits per word - it's not that many more bits.

    1. Re:Wrong - designed to pic with dice by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

      Oops, did natural log instead of base 2.

      1 word out of 7776 is 13 bits.

  61. Silly recommendation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried your recommendation. Every web site I tried it on said that my password wasn't complex enough or was too long or something. In order to be a good way to create a passphrase, it has to work on real world sites - not just in theory. Try again.

  62. I don't get it. by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

    I don't get it! If everyone (most people?) started using diceware and "there are [only] 60,466,176 different potential passphrases" wouldn't it be broken in less than a second if one can make "a trillion guesses a second"?

  63. RFC1760 by jaredmauch · · Score: 1

    I'm actually surprised more people don't use something like RFC1760 to authenticate with systems. The passwords are one-time use and back in the days before SSH this is what we used to get behind the packet filtering to servers when using cleartext authentication.

  64. You could also turn each word into 2 english by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    characters. Because the entropy of one word out of 7776 is almost as high as two english keyboard characters. So any, say 7 word passphrase could be shortened to a 14 character password without losing any entropy.

    But you'd need a program to convert between the two.

  65. Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you use a known word list like this the characters you type (char length) for the each word selected are effectively mapped down to 1 char (out of a 7,776 char list). Whereas if you actually make up a fully random but yet memorable by you string of the same number of characters the brute force for that is substantially more difficult.

    In other words lets say the smallest words on that list are three chars and you "roll" the minimum number of chars to type for your new password is 7 "xxx yyy" and you could need to type many more. as stated that is about a 60,500,000 combinations to brute force. Instead, if you were to take those 7 chars and use a-zA-Z0-9~!@#$%^&*()-= you are talking 8,235,430,000,000 combinations to brute force. How about instead of using a word list to generate a crappy password you generate a random password and come up with a word mnemonic to remember the secure password.

  66. Trillion guesses per second by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    How about instead of allowing a trillion guesses per second, you only allow one every two seconds. Then it would take an average of a googleplex of years to happen upon the correct password.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Trillion guesses per second by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      The nice guys at NSA will totally respect your wish. Just create a file in the top level of your partition called "crackbots.txt", containing the text "guesses_per_second=0.5".

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  67. wordkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or rather than fucking around with dice, you could just use my program wordkey and generate a similarly strong and memorable password with much less effort.

    -puddingpimp

  68. or simple rhymes by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    jack and jill with bob and phil went up the hill to catch a bowl of pills might be really hard to crack.

  69. Meh by blackiner · · Score: 1

    I just use a completely random 13 digit alphanumeric password for my important stuff, and weaker more memorable passwords for random websites. Memorize the hard stuff for the important stuff. Calculator comes out to 401008959688303753940.6 years at one trillion guesses per second. Unless I did the math wrong... I ain't even give a fuck if someone gets the hash... the password practically already IS a hash.

    1. Re:Meh by blackiner · · Score: 1

      Actually I did the math wrong, only would last 28 days. Time to get better passwords.

  70. online tool for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has no one built an online tool for this, may be worth their while. :)

  71. bullshit by Tom · · Score: 1

    This is total bullshit, and dangerous at that.

    Firstly, a lot of software out there still has password length limits, sometimes silently discarding additional characters. You will still need ordinary passwords now and then.

    Secondly, no normal human will type a five, six or more words passphrase every time they want to unlock their screen. They will do it for three days while they're hyped on how secure they are now, and then it'll become something they hate, and then they'll change it back to "123".

    Thirdly, this is a bit more tricky, the real world security of almost every password scheme I've come across in 15 years of IT security experience is several orders of magnitude lower than the mathematical assumption. Because we consistently forget to take the human factor into account. Maybe some extreme nerds will actually follow this guideline, more normal people will discard words they can't remember for words they can, change things "a little" for convenience, and generally sabotage the whole system without even realizing it. It's the same as with passwords, all over again. Yes, on paper, a password has on the order of 10^16 possible combinations. But in reality, taking into account how people actually choose passwords (even ignoring the whole "password" and "123456" problem!) the actual diversity is more on the order of 10^9. Same here. You think using dice removes the human factor. omg do you underestimate humans!

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  72. Obligatory XKCD reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linked password generator is interesting, but (a) uses 8k words out of over 100k English words, and (b) requires manual password generation with dice etc. (Yes, this may be a good thing if you're really paranoid, but it is a faff.) You could also try http://correcthorsebatterystaple.net which automates the process and allows for various options (number of words, separators etc.) The only thing is, it doesn't say how large their wordlist is. Or it's not exactly difficult just to download a really large wordlist and pick random entries from it.

  73. I prefer pseudo-words by Oscaro · · Score: 1

    I'm using this tool http://www.ploodood.net/ I made some time ago to generate most of my passwords (o pass phrases). It spits out some words that looks like real words but are not. Stuff like "picurned lible shimen" or "inglequeggett". It's fun too :P

    1. Re:I prefer pseudo-words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using this tool http://www.ploodood.net/

      Here, let me link it for you http://www.ploodood.net/

  74. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    uh huh. Or you could just take a quote or a passage from a book that you like and intentionally change one or two of the words. Seems a lot easier to remember and just as hard to brute-force.

    "It was the woof of times it was the meow of times sharklasers." (It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...)
    "Cats are just outdated kittens." (Adults are just outdated children)
    "The smurf who passes the sentence should smurf the smurf." (The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword)
    "Not all those who swim are snapple." (not all those who wander are lost)

    WHY are these not "random" enough as long as you don't know what author I'm using?

  75. How much harder would it be to crack if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we stopped using ALL ENGLISH?

    For example, "richtig caballo pilha agrafe.

    1. Re:How much harder would it be to crack if... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      You could probably do even better, but you wouldn't be able to post it here due to lack of unicode support . . . .

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  76. Re:Ultimate Security Risk: Carry PW in your pocket by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    If your skull is wrench proof, maybe. Otherwise "give me your paper or I crack you skull" is about as secure as "give me your password or I crack your skull".

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  77. Re:Ultimate Security Risk: Carry PW in your pocket by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    It's probably a good thing I didn't have that happen with the password I set when I was in a bad mood. "Gimme yur password" "FuckOff123#"

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  78. #FAIL 30 days later... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    The system requires you to change your password. That complicated passphrase is now useless.

    In fact, mandatory password resets often are the cause of weak passwords. Humans can't constantly change and remember their passwords. So they go to simpler passwords and patterned passwords.

  79. Standard password by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

    I'll just continue using my standard password:
    '; SELECT * FROM unencrypted_passwords; --

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  80. Re:Ultimate Security Risk: Carry PW in your pocket by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of people who have accounts get hacked aren't getting physical visits from the attacker. Hell keeping your pass phrase on a sticky note under your keyboard isn't that dangerous either unless you are specifically protecting against an insider threat.

  81. Re:Ultimate Security Risk: Carry PW in your pocket by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

    Carry multiple pass phrases with you, and give the attacker the wrong one.

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  82. Already insecure by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

    I thought "Correct Horse Battery Staple" was already blown up by advanced rainbow table and hashing techniques, and that's why we have to TWO-FACTOR ALL THE THINGS.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  83. memory vs. password rules by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    That's all well and good, but servers tend to have rules requiring mixed case, letters, numbers and special characters. These rules make passwords more challenging to remember. I can remember horsebatterystaple easily enough, but will quickly forget H0r$eBa77ery$7aple

  84. Re:makewtf() by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, testing.... first hit:

    land-holder nonthreateningly reassessed ejaculated ranny

    What's a ranny?

  85. Conlang-ware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a conlanger, you can generate passwords using an equivalent method that are invulnerable to dictionary attacks, yet easy to remember. If use use punctuation marks such as '%' to render certain phonemes in the latin alphabet, entropy increases even further. Many dictionary attacks expect capital letters to correspond to the first letter of a word as in CamelCase, but if the attacker does not possess your conlang's dictionary the capitalization appears truly random and adds to the overall entropy.

    Note that this only applies to homebrew conlangs, if the attacker happens to have a Klingon dictionary available you're in hot water as it doesn't have as large a vocabulary as a natlang.

    Passwords can be generated that are easy to remember and have high entropy, but you have to go to great lengths to obfuscate the underlying pattern.

  86. It doesn't actually take that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time someone says it takes x days/months/years to crack, actually it doesn't. It takes up to that amount of time at max. For instance, say, if your password is '50' and NSA bruteforces 2 number password, they will crack it using only half of the time (given they start from 0 or 99).

  87. Easy?f by doccus · · Score: 1

    All these "simple" methods seem so complex and difficult to remember that no wonder people give up and go for the easy ones.. But, hey, there's a whole (virtual) room of geeks here.. can't SOME one think of a genuinely easy method? I for one, think we should be looking at tyhe genuine failings of technology and use that to advantage.. We ,may finally have taught Big Blue to play a good game of chess, but it still can't tell a joke like O.scar Wilde or wit like Mark Twain. So it stands to reason , and it most certainly cannot lie down to reason, that a joke would make a perfect PW, as long as it's never been heard before. ...

    1. Re:Easy?f by doccus · · Score: 1

      Instead of "Please enter password" why not "knock knock who's there?" OTOH, maybe you'd simply have a million losers say "administrator" ;-)

  88. Grammar is going the way of the wooly mammoth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if a weaker passphrase is ok for your purpose you can use less words

    Should read "fewer words", not "less words". With a few exceptions, use "fewer" for things you can count (e.g. marbles) and "less" for things you can't count (e.g. water). Never mind the fact that most grocery stores in the U.S. have checkout lanes designated as "15 items or less" (cringe).

  89. Re: Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possibl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change bank. Now.