Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #72175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-08 07:55 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-13 21:42 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 07:55 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 07:57 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 08:01 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2015-10-09 01:08 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:08 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:09 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 13:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-11 19:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 16:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-11 21:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 17:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 18:45 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 18:03 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 19:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 21:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:50 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 17:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 01:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:53 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 16:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 14:32 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 18:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-20 16:35 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-11 20:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 21:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-12 01:08 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:59 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 23:08 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 04:41 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 00:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:37 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 05:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 06:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:44 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:23 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:47 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 03:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:14 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-12 12:08 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:25 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:16 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 23:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:44 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 07:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-16 08:27 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2015-10-13 11:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-13 08:45 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-12 20:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 00:44 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 11:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:27 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 01:45 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 21:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-15 01:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:51 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 12:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 13:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:47 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. JW <none@dev.null> - 2015-10-16 06:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 17:12 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 20:06 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com> - 2015-10-16 02:37 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:32 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 19:10 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-15 21:28 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-16 00:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-15 17:51 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 20:35 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 09:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 21:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 13:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 04:49 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-13 22:39 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:40 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 15:01 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:42 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:32 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:48 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 02:09 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-21 11:10 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 18:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 15:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:17 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 21:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-13 22:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:00 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:19 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:29 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:38 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-13 22:54 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 04:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:44 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:11 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:48 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 13:24 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:23 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:36 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 02:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-13 18:54 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:05 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:52 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 07:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:58 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:02 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 12:19 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 17:17 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 22:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2015-10-12 16:50 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:33 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-12 21:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 21:43 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-13 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 07:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 07:28 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 10:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-13 04:35 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 12:57 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-13 14:41 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 13:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-13 16:24 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:51 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:55 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 19:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:57 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:02 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 22:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:37 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 12:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Brian Gladman <blindanagram@nowhere.net> - 2015-10-12 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:06 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:54 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:24 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-12 07:07 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 16:31 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 15:55 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-16 17:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-17 01:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-17 12:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 19:32 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 20:29 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-18 08:10 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 11:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 12:42 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200
Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 00:34 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 11:55 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 06:47 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Neon John <no@never.com> - 2015-10-18 13:25 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 16:18 -0700
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 18:37 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:54 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-12 05:52 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:35 -0400
Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:07 -0500
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:16 +0200
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] David Malone <dwmalone@walton.maths.tcd.ie> - 2015-10-21 15:54 +0000
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 11:57 -0400
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2015-10-21 11:17 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-15 10:38 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-12 09:56 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:32 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:47 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:17 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:36 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 23:07 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-13 21:42 +0200
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Firefox improvements. |
| Message-ID | <a333b$56160567$d47876e2$30622@news.ziggo.nl> |
1. No pop-ups what's so ever: meaning: no fokking confirmation windows for fullscreen, resend info, no asking if I want to remember e-mail address and/or passwords. 2. No remembering of login names and/or addresses... too dangerous that similar look websites try to confuse you and get your password by you accidently entering it.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c36c0$561605ab$d47876e2$30811@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #72175 |
Example of this: Intel's shitty website looks exactly like hotmail login screen... only slight different... same colors, same organization. Intel is clearly trying to hack hotmail accounts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8794b$561606b5$d47876e2$31695@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #72176 |
There ya go for evidence... http://www.skybuck.org/TooSimilar/TooSimilar.png Cut and paste together... in reality... it's more white space around it.... Combined with firefox and same account names... it's easy to make this mistake... and enter hotmail password into intel site or vice versa ! Dangerous !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 01:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <LBKRx.82288$3T2.46141@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #72177 |
Skybuck Flying wrote: > There ya go for evidence... > > http://www.skybuck.org/TooSimilar/TooSimilar.png > > Cut and paste together... in reality... it's more white space around it.... > > Combined with firefox and same account names... it's easy to make this > mistake... and enter hotmail password into intel site or vice versa ! > > Dangerous ! You forgot how to READ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 13:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e5468$5618f1c0$d47876e2$5525@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #72241 |
"Robert Baer" wrote in message news:LBKRx.82288$3T2.46141@fx29.iad... Skybuck Flying wrote: > There ya go for evidence... > > http://www.skybuck.org/TooSimilar/TooSimilar.png > > Cut and paste together... in reality... it's more white space around > it.... > > Combined with firefox and same account names... it's easy to make this > mistake... and enter hotmail password into intel site or vice versa ! > > Dangerous ! " You forgot how to READ? " No when very busy and having multiple web browsers open... I intend to focus on center parts of the screen... and certain items I don't even notice anymore... like blind spots... I just see: "blue" and "white boxes". Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <93186$5618f200$d47876e2$5813@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #72386 |
Perhaps lack of sleep and/or tiredness also plays a roll. Perhaps part of the visual cortex of the brain shuts down :) Bye, Skybuck =D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <263cd$561a967a$d47876e2$46985@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #72176 |
Oh and by the way... The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements ever !!! It must be 8 to 15 characters.. must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a special character ?! wtf ?! This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put the special requirements at the back ! It's fokking stupid ! Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 13:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s46l1b1q5sbqff3lgitvqprbvk1mdqg4ad@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72490 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >Oh and by the way... > >The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >ever !!! You're a goddamned idiot, child. > >It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >special character ?! > >wtf ?! And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going on. > >This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >the special requirements at the back ! It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking better. Grow the fuck up, you cross-posting retarded little piece of Usenet troll dumbfuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mveb7b$9sd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72491 |
On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> Oh and by the way... >> >> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >> ever !!! > > You're a goddamned idiot, child. >> >> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >> special character ?! >> >> wtf ?! > > And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to > secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, > and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going > on. >> >> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >> the special requirements at the back ! > > It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking > better. Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 16:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <92gl1b9ms3670hoofk13bbnuecbveqivt3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72500 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:55:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>> Oh and by the way... >>> >>> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >>> ever !!! >> >> You're a goddamned idiot, child. >>> >>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>> special character ?! >>> >>> wtf ?! >> >> And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to >> secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, >> and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going >> on. >>> >>> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >>> the special requirements at the back ! >> >> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >> better. > >Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. >There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them >have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an >adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). >Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be >ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. > >Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is >harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is harder, not easier. And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, therefore the number of permutations is greater. Perhaps you meant to answer HIS post, not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvehmc$33o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72511 |
On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>> special character ?! >>>> >>>> wtf ?! >>> >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. > Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is > harder, not easier. > > And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the > permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, > therefore the number of permutations is greater. In theory the number of permutations is larger. But adding special requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. For example, given that there needs to be a mix of upper and lower case, many people will just have a capital at the start. If a digit is needed, some just stick '1' at the end. Then a likely pattern is A-Z followed by lower-case letters followed by 1. When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fgjl1b1n8tl5u3e9c575nubkn0gjh31cr8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72514 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > >>> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > >>>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>>> special character ?! >>>>> >>>>> wtf ?! > >>>> >>>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>>> better. > >> Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is >> harder, not easier. >> >> And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the >> permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, >> therefore the number of permutations is greater. > >In theory the number of permutations is larger. But adding special >requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. > >For example, given that there needs to be a mix of upper and lower case, >many people will just have a capital at the start. If a digit is needed, >some just stick '1' at the end. Then a likely pattern is A-Z followed by >lower-case letters followed by 1. > >When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mven6p$m01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72515 |
On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > .... >> >>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. > > Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ejpl1b9d9qimo6votfi6frmnmj4n1teiv9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72528 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >.... >>> >>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. >> >> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. > >Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8085mFiadgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72530 |
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: > >>On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>.... >>>> >>>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as >>>>before. >>> >>> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. >> >>Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >>postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. > > Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting. If those computers have functional USB ports the directory of security and his boss should be fired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pprl1b56nocfilktsm0a9nucq7tooolict@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72532 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:03:17 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Gave us: >"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote: > >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >> <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >> >>>On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>.... >>>>> >>>>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as >>>>>before. >>>> >>>> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. >>> >>>Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >>>postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. >> >> Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting. > >If those computers have functional USB ports the directory of security and >his boss should be fired. Does not matter. We were not even allowed into the lab with a memory device, or even a phone containing a camera. There were lock boxes outside the lab for depositing phones into if you forgot to leave it in your locker. And no water fountains either. :-) We had labs in which you were not even allowed to have a writing utensil or paper on your person when you entered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5s1m1bpg7alhtcqinlbf8ic9ufkd6uh85g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72528 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >.... >>> >>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. >> >> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. > >Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. It might not have been the office mate but it will be if you leave your wallet open on the desk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf76q$qbg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72514 |
On 11/10/15 21:45, Bartc wrote: > On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > >>> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > >>>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>>> special character ?! >>>>> >>>>> wtf ?! > >>>> >>>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search >>>> hacking >>>> better. > >> Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is >> harder, not easier. >> >> And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the >> permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, >> therefore the number of permutations is greater. > > In theory the number of permutations is larger. No, in theory and in practice, there are more permutations of 8-15 characters than there are of 8-15 characters containing at least one digit and a mix of upper and lower case. > But adding special > requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. If by "could conceivably" you mean "does" and if by "guess" you mean brute force (which is the context of my reply), you are right. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf71o$qbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72511 |
On 11/10/15 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:55:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >>> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> Oh and by the way... >>>> >>>> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >>>> ever !!! >>> >>> You're a goddamned idiot, child. >>>> >>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>> special character ?! >>>> >>>> wtf ?! >>> >>> And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to >>> secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, >>> and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going >>> on. >>>> >>>> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >>>> the special requirements at the back ! >>> >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. >> >> Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. >> There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them >> have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an >> adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). >> Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be >> ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. >> >> Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is >> harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? > > Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is > harder, not easier. I don't think I'm illiterate, although I would certainly welcome your views. But you actually said: >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. The only "it" to which you could be referring in the text that I have available is the rule that characters must contain at least one upper case character, one lower case character, and one digit, as well as being in the range 8-15 characters long. It is not clear to me how ABCDeFGHIJ is "longer" than ABCDEFGHIJ. If you would care to explain that, I would be most grateful. > And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the > permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, > therefore the number of permutations is greater. The number of strings of length 8-15 is considerably greater than the number of strings of length 8-15 with at least one upper case letter, at least one lower case letter, and at least one digit. Adding the restrictions reduces the list of available characters. It does not increase the list. > Perhaps you meant to answer HIS post, not mine. No, I don't believe so. I was responding to the incorrect claim that reducing the key search space makes brute force more difficult, which it doesn't. It makes /dictionary/ attacks easier, but not brute force. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 17:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d80596Fhl5bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72500 |
"Richard Heathfield" wrote: > Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. > There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them have > no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an adversary can > eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). Even with > 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be ignored. And > that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. Every time Comcast has assigned and given me a password over the phone, it has always been two four-character words concatenated. This works beautifully for two people communicating over a telephone. A string of 8 lower-case letters would have 26^8 or 2e11 combinations. Because of vowels and stuff, google says there are only 1e6 English words, and only part of them have four letters so what Comcast assigns must be pretty trivial to break, especially if my guess as to its composition is right I estimate the market value of my password at much less than three cents, but Hilary Clinton's password should be worth at least $100K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web