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 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf7b8$qbg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72524 |
On 11/10/15 23:13, Osmium wrote: > "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. That makes a dictionary attack easier, but not a brute force attack. -- 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 | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 01:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8bijeFdo9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72524 |
On 2015-10-11 22:13:57 +0000, Osmium said: > "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. Yes. Things like that are designed specifically for that purpose. > Because of vowels and stuff, google says there are only 1e6 English > words, and only part of them have four letters And it is even more restricted. Because they have a system specifically designed to be communicated over the phone they will avoid words like "feat" and "feet". They will probably avoid words like "seat" and "cede" as well, even though those aren't complete homophones. The lesson here is that password generating schemes should be designed for the purpose with which they will be used. Although I am hardly a fan of Comcast's security provisions for their customers, it sounds like they did a reasonable job here. > so what Comcast assigns must be pretty trivial to break, especially if > my guess as to its composition is right Yes. Assuming you are able to run an off-line attack. Let's say that there are about 2048 words that could be on the list. (I think it would be closer to about 1700, but 2048 makes the rest of the math easier.) So the total number of passwords that that scheme could generate is 4,194,304 (22 bits). An off-line cracker, for typical ways that passwords are hashed, can perform millions of guesses per second. So running through all 4,194,304 possibilities will not take long. However, for an off-line attack be possible, the attacker needs to get a hold of the password hash database. If Comcast doesn't see that as particularly plausible than it only needs to defend against on-line attacks. For an on-line attack, the attacker is locked out after a small handful of guesses. So if on-line attacks are what Comcast is concerned about, then 22 bit passwords are fine. (I'm not saying that they are right to only worry about on-line attacks; I'm just saying that if that is their threat assessment, then that weak password scheme isn't terrible.) Note that to defend against an off-line attack you need passwords to be much stronger. Say 50 bits (depending on what sort of attacker you imagine). To do that with the same scheme, you would need a password to be made up of 5 randomly chosen four letter words (55 bits). Now it is possible for humans to learn and use such passwords, but they are only going to do that for a very small number of passwords. So Comcast can't get away with asking people to do that. So here is an argument made well by Cormac Herley and fellow researchers: If you can't plausibly get people to use passwords that are strong enough to defend against off-line attacks, then all you need is to get them to use passwords that will defend against online attacks. That is, if 20 bits is enough to defend against an on-line attack, but it takes 50 to defend against an off-line attack, then a 20 bit password is as good as a 40 bit one. Cormac calls this the "chasm of don't care". As a 20 bit and a 40 bit password fall or stand against the identical set of threats, then there is no reason to demand people to use the 40 bit ones. It is only if you can get the passwords over the off-line attack threshold that it matters. You can see his talk at the most recent PasswordsCon here: http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=videos/bsideslasvegas2015/pw02-pushing-on-string-adventures-in-the-dont-care-regions-of-password-strength-cormac-herley I'm not going to rush to embrace the implications of that view; but it does sound like what is going on with Comcast's scheme. Cheers, -j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn8u6yhepp.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #73015 |
Could those posting in this thread please remove comp.lang.c from the list of newsgroups? I'm sure it must be interesting to some folks but it doesn't really have anything to do with comp.lang.c. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 16:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9ama2bpfdhl112v65cvpakg0lf3e39gvge@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73325 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:53:54 -0700, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> Gave us: >Could those posting in this thread please remove >comp.lang.c from the list of newsgroups? I'm sure it >must be interesting to some folks but it doesn't really >have anything to do with comp.lang.c. Thank you. There was a lot of c language used on the Crays. You should jump on Skytard Posting for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnio62y26x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #73338 |
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:53:54 -0700, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>
> Gave us:
>
>>Could those posting in this thread please remove
>>comp.lang.c from the list of newsgroups? I'm sure it
>>must be interesting to some folks but it doesn't really
>>have anything to do with comp.lang.c. Thank you.
>
> There was a lot of c language used on the Crays.
Yes, there was -- and if you want to discuss C as used on Cray
systems, comp.lang.c is a good place to do it. I've done so myself.
But you didn't mention C (or cryptography, or electronic design).
> You should jump on Skytard Posting for that.
He just did. His request was directed to everyone posting in this
thread, including "Skybuck Flying" and including you.
In general, complaining to "Skybuck Flying" about his off-topic posts
appears to be ineffective, so there's no further point in continuing
to complain to him directly. Complaints directed to you have also
been ineffective so far, but I for one still have some hope that
you might change your behavior rather than blaming others for it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5hra2b9g8h57heesc6sqldti53ioop1uu8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73346 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:32:22 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> Gave us: >In general, complaining to "Skybuck Flying" about his off-topic posts >appears to be ineffective, Tada! >so there's no further point in continuing >to complain to him directly. No shit. > Complaints directed to you have also >been ineffective so far, There was one post, and I do not think it was "directed at me, and I replied relating to C code and computers. Your logic and facts founder. >but I for one still have some hope that >you might change your behavior rather than blaming others for it. You WAS doing fine up until this point. (yes I know it is were) I blamed no other. I respond to the groups that were posted in, because I do not go hunting up where folks loiter at. I know that is hard for you to grasp, but I feel that I am further along than you with respect to Usenet, and that is aside from the fact that we are not on friggin' modems and pay per byte connections any more. And no, I do not want to hear how it muddles up your group's archive of posts. That too is a pathetic argument. You act like you have to wade through a tsunami of debris, when it was just ONE thread. Such fucking children.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8rdy4gv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #73353 |
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> writes:
[snip]
*PLONK*
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n05msp$3ei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73407 |
On 20/10/15 15:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> writes: > [snip] > > *PLONK* And I thought /I/ was a slow learner! :-) Since switching from KNode to Thunderbird, I finally have a newsreader that can more or less handle killfiling in a sensible way, and it has made clc a much more pleasant environment. KNode, which I used for many years, has a scoring system that I found very unwieldy - although it was possible to filter out articles, it was far from intuitive, and every time I switched to a new machine I had to set it up all over again, so after a while I stopped bothering. Thunderbird's killfiling is far superior, and all the idiots (plus one non-idiot, alas, because I found it impossible to read his articles without wanting to throw the keyboard through the screen) have just vanished, like an old oak table, from comp.lang.c, so I can focus my time here on more enjoyable discussions. I realise that there is a certain satisfaction in announcing a plonk (although in this case it was more of a plink), and I certainly don't wish to challenge your decision to do so, but I have decided to follow a quieter path. People don't need me to tell them they've been plonked. The bright ones will work it out for themselves, and the - shall we say "potentially bright"? - ones wouldn't know what it meant anyway. So... back to C. (Or electronics, or cryptography, as the case may be.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 20:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvf01r$fc4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72500 |
On 10/11/2015 02:55 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > 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"? It involves human psychology - when you don't impose limits on passwords, people disproportionately likely to choose them from a very small subset of that larger set - and the hackers have, through lots of experience, successfully characterized that small subset, and have routines tha t make searching it very efficient.. When you do impose such limits on passwords, you force people somewhat out of their usual patterns, and they'll end up choosing a password from a portion of the smaller set which is much larger than the portion they use when there are no limits, and that larger portions is not as well characterized by the hackers. It might seem paradoxical, but so does a lot of human psychology. I use randomly generated passwords; they're harder to memorize, but it only takes me a week or so to memorize the ones I use daily. The ones I use less frequently are stored in an encrypted file stored using an app on my smart phone that has no permissions to access any of the external connections of my phone. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tm1m1bhouitv6vt6v9v5a3rr840m2e8kg9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72540 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:51:04 -0400, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> Gave us: >It might seem paradoxical, but so does a lot of human psychology. > >I use randomly generated passwords; they're harder to memorize, but it >only takes me a week or so to memorize the ones I use daily. The ones I >use less frequently are stored in an encrypted file stored using an app >on my smart phone that has no permissions to access any of the external >connections of my phone. I have a link I recently memorized. It a doosey too! Educate yourselves, America! Donald Trump is a criminal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJmOitW_hSg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvf165$hdf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72540 |
On 2015-10-12, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > On 10/11/2015 02:55 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> 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"? > > It involves human psychology - when you don't impose limits on > passwords, people disproportionately likely to choose them from a very > small subset of that larger set - and the hackers have, through lots of > experience, successfully characterized that small subset, and have > routines tha t make searching it very efficient.. When you do impose > such limits on passwords, you force people somewhat out of their usual > patterns, and they'll end up choosing a password from a portion of the > smaller set which is much larger than the portion they use when there > are no limits, and that larger portions is not as well characterized by > the hackers. > > It might seem paradoxical, but so does a lot of human psychology. > > I use randomly generated passwords; they're harder to memorize, but it > only takes me a week or so to memorize the ones I use daily. The ones I > use less frequently are stored in an encrypted file stored using an app > on my smart phone that has no permissions to access any of the external > connections of my phone. It depends. The strength of a password can be calibrated to the importance of what it is protecting. Thus, a password for signing up to say the Wall Street journal for a free account need not be very strong. For them to do anything to enforce strong passwords is just stupid. On the other hand doing things to make sure people use strong passwords for their banking is a good idea. The problem is that too often the most severe restrictions are on the most inconsequential of sites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf7i9$rdj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72540 |
On 12/10/15 01:51, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/11/2015 02:55 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> 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. This is the key line that everyone seems to be ignoring, but which is the line to which I was actually responding. >> >> 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"? > > It involves human psychology James, the context is brute force, not a dictionary attack. So human psychology doesn't come into it. What comes into it is "number of permutations". Only. -- 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 23:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sv8m1b166ji1p9ahd213hbipe8puejlhhc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72560 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:59:16 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 12/10/15 01:51, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/11/2015 02:55 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> 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. > >This is the key line that everyone seems to be ignoring, but which is >the line to which I was actually responding. > >>> >>> 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"? >> >> It involves human psychology > >James, the context is brute force, not a dictionary attack. So human >psychology doesn't come into it. What comes into it is "number of >permutations". Only. Which is LARGER with the larger string requisite and larger still with the capital and numeric and odd character requisite, much less their position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 04:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvfa0l$12q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72561 |
On 12/10/15 04:08, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:59:16 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> On 12/10/15 01:51, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 10/11/2015 02:55 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> This is the key line that everyone seems to be ignoring, but which is >> the line to which I was actually responding. >> >>>> >>>> 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"? >>> >>> It involves human psychology >> >> James, the context is brute force, not a dictionary attack. So human >> psychology doesn't come into it. What comes into it is "number of >> permutations". Only. > > Which is LARGER with the larger string requisite and larger still with > the capital and numeric and odd character requisite, much less their > position. Forgive me for pointing this out, but there is no "larger" string involved. The rule we are discussing is "8-15 characters, at least one digit, at least one lower case character, at least one upper case character", and the point at issue is whether adding the restrictions on the nature of the characters makes the password easier to find by brute force. Consider the longest permissible password: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO This is not a valid password because it contains no digits. So we change it to: ABCDEFGHIJKLMN0 It is no longer than before. It's still not valid, though, because it contains no lower-case letters. So we change it to: ABCDeFGHIJKLMN0 It is now valid, but it is still no longer than before. A brute-force search of the legal keyspace can ignore the first two, and trillions more like them, instead of having to test them. Thus, adding the rules makes the brute force attack easier, not harder. What becomes more difficult is not brute force, but heuristic methods such as dictionary attacks. -- 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 | 2015-10-12 00:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cscm1b1msbans8bthelp78ivu2nb4bnan3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72563 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:41:04 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >ABCDeFGHIJKLMN0 > >It is now valid, but it is still no longer than before. You seem to miss the fact that a thru z is 26 and A thru Z is 26 more and 0 thru 9 is ten more for a 62 character pool. THAT IS larger than hunting through a mere 26 character pool. And the addition of an odd character makes the pool even larger still.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 00:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvfdb1$83p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72566 |
On 10/12/2015 12:16 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:41:04 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> ABCDeFGHIJKLMN0 >> >> It is now valid, but it is still no longer than before. > > You seem to miss the fact that a thru z is 26 and A thru Z is 26 more > and 0 thru 9 is ten more for a 62 character pool. So you're saying that a restriction on the passwords that they must contain at least one capital letter makes it harder to guess the passwords than a restriction that no capital letters are allowed. That's perfectly true, because that second restriction is far more restrictive. However, in what context was that stricter restriction involved in this discussion? As far as I can tell, the comparison has been between having no restrictions on the number of capital letters and digits, vs. mandating at least one capital letter and and at least one digit. The latter restrictions is stricter, and makes it correspondingly easier to find the password through a brute force attack. It's not a whole lot easier - but it is a little easier. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 05:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvfdr7$95m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72566 |
On 12/10/15 05:16, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:41:04 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> ABCDeFGHIJKLMN0 >> >> It is now valid, but it is still no longer than before. > > You seem to miss the fact that a thru z is 26 and A thru Z is 26 more > and 0 thru 9 is ten more for a 62 character pool. No, I'm not missing that at all. You are, but I'm not. > THAT IS larger than hunting through a mere 26 character pool. Just to keep the numbers manageable, let's look at three-character passwords, but keeping the same rule: at least one lower case, at least one upper case, at least one digit. With that rule, we have 26 lower * 26 upper * 10 digit = 6760 possible passwords. *Without* that rule, we have 62*62*62 = 238328 possible passwords. So if your argument is correct, it's more difficult to conduct a brute force attack on 6760 passwords than it is to conduct a brute force attack on 238328 passwords. Homeopathic cryptanalysis! Clearly, this effect is diluted when we add in the 5 to 12 extra characters to make the length up to 8-15, but it's still there. > And the addition of an odd character makes the pool even larger still. The pool with the lower/upper/digit rule is smaller than the pool without that rule. Making the permissible password longer dilutes the effect, but does not eradicate it, and certainly doesn't make it go negative. If I'm thinking of a number between a million and a hundred million and you have to guess it, you have to choose from ninety-nine million possibilities. Brute force will take a while. But if you know that I wasn't allowed to choose even numbers, you won't bother to check them, so you now only have to choose from forty-nine and a half million - half the work. Restrictions on allowable keys make brute force easier, not harder. -- 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 | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 00:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvfedl$afv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72569 |
On 10/12/2015 12:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > Just to keep the numbers manageable, let's look at three-character > passwords, but keeping the same rule: at least one lower case, at least > one upper case, at least one digit. > > With that rule, we have 26 lower * 26 upper * 10 digit = 6760 possible > passwords. That's the number of unordered combinations of 1 lower case letter, one upper case letter, and one digit. The order matters, and there's 3! == 6 different possible orders, so the actual number is 40560. That has negligible impact on your conclusions, being still a lot smaller than: > *Without* that rule, we have 62*62*62 = 238328 possible passwords. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 06:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvffmh$d2r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72571 |
On 12/10/15 05:56, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/12/2015 12:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... >> Just to keep the numbers manageable, let's look at three-character >> passwords, but keeping the same rule: at least one lower case, at least >> one upper case, at least one digit. >> >> With that rule, we have 26 lower * 26 upper * 10 digit = 6760 possible >> passwords. > > That's the number of unordered combinations of 1 lower case letter, one > upper case letter, and one digit. The order matters, and there's 3! == 6 > different possible orders, so the actual number is 40560. Indeed. My apologies. In an earlier reply, I had gone to some lengths to point this out, but it got edited away when I decided to post a much shorter response. In the interim, I allowed myself to overlook the point, which I shouldn't have done. > That has > negligible impact on your conclusions, being still a lot smaller than: > >> *Without* that rule, we have 62*62*62 = 238328 possible passwords. Right. -- 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 | 2015-10-12 02:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5bkm1b9ilmv2280v4f7uiarfpha8ip7ili@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72569 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 05:46:26 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >With that rule, we have 26 lower * 26 upper * 10 digit = 6760 possible >passwords. Nope. Their position also varies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web