Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57498 > unrolled thread

File vault, firmware password, etc

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-03 08:57 +0000
    Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 13:20 +0000
      Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 15:13 +0000
        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 16:07 +0000
          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 16:19 +0000
            Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-03 17:57 +0000
              Re: File vault, firmware password, etc me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-04 00:03 +0000
                Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-04 12:08 +0000
                  Re: File vault, firmware password, etc me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-04 19:31 +0000
                    Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-04 20:46 +0000
                      Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-03-04 21:41 +0000
                        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-04 17:01 -0500
                          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-04 23:09 +0000
                        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-04 22:06 +0000
                        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-04 22:25 +0000
                          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-04 22:39 +0000
                            Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-04 23:26 +0000
                              Re: File vault, firmware password, etc billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-05 00:10 +0000
                      Re: File vault, firmware password, etc billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-04 21:48 +0000
                        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-04 23:09 +0000
          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 16:25 +0000
        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-03 17:05 +0000
          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 17:10 +0000
          Re: File vault, firmware password, etc billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-05 18:22 +0000
            Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-05 18:28 +0000
      Re: File vault, firmware password, etc dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2014-03-03 17:57 +0000
        Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 19:11 +0000
    Re: File vault, firmware password, etc Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-04 17:10 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#57498 — File vault, firmware password, etc

I am thinking about additional security for my Macs, a 2007 iMac and a
2012 MacBook Pro, both running Mavericks. After reading a lot I've got
very confused, possibly even more so than when I started. So some of my
questions and comments may well be stupid.

I don't have great secrets to protect, just normal stuff. I am mostly
concerned about protecting my data if a computer was stolen.

I have an admin account and also a standard account. Both have
passwords, not obvious but only about a dozen characters.

So far as I understand it, the situation is this.

File Vault 2. This encrypts the internal drive. One logs in using the
normal account password. So presumably the encryption protects against
other methods of accessing the drive (removing the drive, booting from
an external drive, etc) and that is its main purpose.

Firmware Password. This prevents any means of accessing the drive other
than a normal login. Can the drive be read if it is removed? Is that why
some people use both File Vault and a firmware password?

What about security on external drives? As far as I can  see, it is easy
enough to encrypt a Time Machine drive and also external non-boot
drives. 

But what should be done with external boot drives? If they are given the
same encryption as non-boot drives, doesn't this mean that they can be
accessed from the internal drive by using a password, but can't be used
for booting? And if one creates an encrypted boot drive by booting from
it unecrypted and the setting up File Vault, then can it be accessed
from the internal drive?

And what about cloning? I have SuperDuper, but it is unclear to me
whether this can clone to a drive that is both encrypted and bootable. I
believe Carbon Copy Cloner can do this, but could not follow the
documentation fully.

-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57506

On 2014-03-03, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
> I am thinking about additional security for my Macs, a 2007 iMac and a
> 2012 MacBook Pro, both running Mavericks. After reading a lot I've got
> very confused, possibly even more so than when I started. So some of my
> questions and comments may well be stupid.
>
> I don't have great secrets to protect, just normal stuff. I am mostly
> concerned about protecting my data if a computer was stolen.
>
> I have an admin account and also a standard account. Both have
> passwords, not obvious but only about a dozen characters.
>
> So far as I understand it, the situation is this.
>
> File Vault 2. This encrypts the internal drive. One logs in using the
> normal account password. So presumably the encryption protects against
> other methods of accessing the drive (removing the drive, booting from
> an external drive, etc) and that is its main purpose.

That's the way I see it too.

> Firmware Password. This prevents any means of accessing the drive other
> than a normal login. Can the drive be read if it is removed? Is that why
> some people use both File Vault and a firmware password?

Prevents acces to the machine itself. one cannot boot into single-user mode or boot fram an external disk, CD, DVD or USB stick.

> What about security on external drives? As far as I can  see, it is easy
> enough to encrypt a Time Machine drive and also external non-boot
> drives.
>
> But what should be done with external boot drives?

Boot from the cloned drive, enable FV and allow it to complete the encryption
process. Thereafter, you will have to supply the FV password to mount the
drive. Once mounted, you can clone to it with the utility of choice.
>
> And what about cloning? I have SuperDuper,

No problem; I do it regularly.

One caution though -- if you change the FV password, do not clone until you
have started from the clone copy and change its FV password. Failure to do so
will disable the drive in the following manner. You supply the old FV password
to unlock the drive but that is the wrong password for the associated account
so the startup process fails causing a reboot which...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57511

On 2014-03-03, Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-03, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Firmware Password. This prevents any means of accessing the drive other
>> than a normal login. Can the drive be read if it is removed? Is that why
>> some people use both File Vault and a firmware password?
>
> Prevents acces to the machine itself. one cannot boot into single-user
> mode or boot fram an external disk, CD, DVD or USB stick.

It can, however be bypassed by changing the hardware configuration (for
instance removing / adding RAM). Someone with physical access to the
machine can overcome it. Also, someone with root access to the machine
can read the firmware password easily with the nvram command-line
utility.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57514

In message <bnjkg2Fk228U2@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-03, Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-03, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>> Firmware Password. This prevents any means of accessing the drive other
>>> than a normal login. Can the drive be read if it is removed? Is that why
>>> some people use both File Vault and a firmware password?
>>
>> Prevents acces to the machine itself. one cannot boot into single-user
>> mode or boot fram an external disk, CD, DVD or USB stick.

> It can, however be bypassed by changing the hardware configuration (for
> instance removing / adding RAM). Someone with physical access to the
> machine can overcome it.

Yep.

> Also, someone with root access to the machine can read the firmware
> password easily with the nvram command-line utility.

Is that still true? I thought that was no longer the case.

However, Filevault 2 completely protects the data on the disk. There is no
way to get to it without the password or the recovery key.


-- 
Thanks to great leaders such as Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, and Socratic
Method, the world is full of history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57516

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > Also, someone with root access to the machine can read the firmware
> > password easily with the nvram command-line utility.
> 
> Is that still true? I thought that was no longer the case.

Whether true or not, the firmware password is not useful for data 
security. People who enable it for that reason are misunderstanding its 
purpose.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57524

Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> Whether true or not, the firmware password is not useful for data 
> security. People who enable it for that reason are misunderstanding its
> purpose.

I realise that I am still not understanding things properly.

But why is the firmware password not useful for data security? Of
course, anyone who can log into an account can read the data. But the
same applies to File Vault doesn't it. And what other insecurity is
there?
-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57535

Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
> But why is the firmware password not useful for data security? Of
> course, anyone who can log into an account can read the data. But the
> same applies to File Vault doesn't it. And what other insecurity is
> there?

Because the firmware password can be easily defeated, buy changing the 
RAM configuration, or taking the drive out and putting it in a different 
computer. The firmware password offers zero data security protection. So 
if that's your goal, forget the firmware password. You need encryption.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57549

Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> Because the firmware password can be easily defeated, buy changing the
> RAM configuration

That's out of date, only applies to older machines. 

> or taking the drive out and putting it in a different 
> computer. 

I thought this did not work either, but I could easily be wrong on this
issue.

>The firmware password offers zero data security protection. So 
> if that's your goal, forget the firmware password. You need encryption.

I had not realised until recently that, though File Vault encryption
protects against removal of the drive, it is only as secure as one's
account password. Which raises the question of how complicated account
passwords should be, given that they need entering fairly often.

For me, I am not worried about someone trying to get into my machine
because they are actively seeking my data, but would like to protect my
data if my machine is casually stolen.
-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57558

Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
> > or taking the drive out and putting it in a different
> > computer.
>
> I thought this did not work either, but I could easily be wrong on 
> this issue.

Encryption (i.e. FileVault) protects against that, but the firmware
password doesn't.

> For me, I am not worried about someone trying to get into my machine
> because they are actively seeking my data, but would like to protect 
> my data if my machine is casually stolen.

It sounds like those things are one and the same. Forget the firmware
password; like I said, its purpose is not data security and it will not
help you if that's what you want. Go with FileVault and a strong
password.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57560

Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
> > > or taking the drive out and putting it in a different
> > > computer.
> >
> > I thought this did not work either, but I could easily be wrong on 
> > this issue.
> 
> Encryption (i.e. FileVault) protects against that, but the firmware
> password doesn't.

OK, I was unsure and I will accept your statement.

> 
> > For me, I am not worried about someone trying to get into my machine
> > because they are actively seeking my data, but would like to protect
> > my data if my machine is casually stolen.
> 
> It sounds like those things are one and the same. 

Not really, in my opinion. Someone seeking my data might well have a
fair bit of information about me (birthday, name of pets, etc), while a
casual thief would have to find some way of getting my password (apart
from removing the hard drive if it is unencrypted).

>Forget the firmware
> password; like I said, its purpose is not data security and it will not
> help you if that's what you want. Go with FileVault and a strong
> password.

The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.

How many characters do you reckon a strong password should have? The
longer the better for strength, but the shorter the better for the
occasions (and there are quite a few of them) when one has to enter an
admin user's password. I don't have a feel for the balance between these
and would welcome opinions.
-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57564

On 2014-03-04, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Kir?ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
> Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
> sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.

Why do you say that? As long as the utility operates on a mounted volume or goes
through the proper API for mounting a volume, it will perform its function.

I've had no problem cloning with SuperDuper! or rebuilding with DiskWarrior.

> How many characters do you reckon a strong password should have? The
> longer the better for strength, but the shorter the better for the
> occasions (and there are quite a few of them) when one has to enter an
> admin user's password. I don't have a feel for the balance between these
> and would welcome opinions.

It's not the length so much as it is the difficulity a thief would have finding
a starting place for his cracking program. Obvious and word play should be
avoided but strings made from the first (or second) letters of a phrase that you
are familiar with, with some scattered capitalization work pretty well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57570

In article <bnmvjkFbrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, Tom Stiller
<clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
> > Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
> > sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.
> 
> Why do you say that? As long as the utility operates on a mounted volume or
> goes through the proper API for mounting a volume, it will perform its function.

without the proper password, it won't mount the drive.

> I've had no problem cloning with SuperDuper! or rebuilding with DiskWarrior.

undercover is a recovery tool, not a cloning tool.

if the mac is stolen, it reports its location so it can be tracked.

if the thug can't use the computer at all, it will never run and never
report itself and the thug gets to keep the computer and probably steal
a bunch more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57588

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <bnmvjkFbrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, Tom Stiller
> <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
> > > Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
> > > sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.
> > 
> > Why do you say that? As long as the utility operates on a mounted volume
> > or goes through the proper API for mounting a volume, it will perform
> > its function.
> 
> without the proper password, it won't mount the drive.
> 
> > I've had no problem cloning with SuperDuper! or rebuilding with
> >DiskWarrior.
> 
> undercover is a recovery tool, not a cloning tool.
> 
> if the mac is stolen, it reports its location so it can be tracked.

Quite. Tom is right about cloning programs, but UC is not a cloner, it
is a recovery program. When a user is logged in, it will report the
location of the Mac, so one can hope to trace it.

But if the drive is still locked, UC can't work.
> 
> if the thug can't use the computer at all, it will never run and never
> report itself and the thug gets to keep the computer and probably steal
> a bunch more.

Of course, in latest versions, anyone can use Safari (maybe ONLY Safari)
as a guest user even with an encrypted disk.


-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57571

On 2014-03-04, Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-04, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Kir?ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
>> Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
>> sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.
>
> Why do you say that? As long as the utility operates on a mounted
> volume or goes through the proper API for mounting a volume, it will
> perform its function.

I was going to ask the same question.

> I've had no problem cloning with SuperDuper! or rebuilding with
> DiskWarrior.
>
>> How many characters do you reckon a strong password should have? The
>> longer the better for strength, but the shorter the better for the
>> occasions (and there are quite a few of them) when one has to enter
>> an admin user's password. I don't have a feel for the balance between
>> these and would welcome opinions.
>
> It's not the length so much as it is the difficulity a thief would
> have finding a starting place for his cracking program. Obvious and
> word play should be avoided but strings made from the first (or
> second) letters of a phrase that you are familiar with, with some
> scattered capitalization work pretty well.

Indeed. I tend to use complete sentences with normal capitalization and
punctuation, sometimes with proper nouns included. That makes them very
easy to remember for me.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57579

In message <bnmvjkFbrt0U1@mid.individual.net> 
  Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-04, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Kir?ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>>

> [snip]

>>
>> The trouble with FileVault is that, as far as I can see, it prevents
>> Undercover (and similar computer recovery programs), and I think (not
>> sure) that it may also prevent Find My Mac.

> Why do you say that? As long as the utility operates on a mounted volume or goes
> through the proper API for mounting a volume, it will perform its function.

> I've had no problem cloning with SuperDuper! or rebuilding with DiskWarrior.

>> How many characters do you reckon a strong password should have? The
>> longer the better for strength, but the shorter the better for the
>> occasions (and there are quite a few of them) when one has to enter an
>> admin user's password. I don't have a feel for the balance between these
>> and would welcome opinions.

> It's not the length so much as it is the difficulity a thief would have finding
> a starting place for his cracking program. Obvious and word play should be
> avoided but strings made from the first (or second) letters of a phrase that you
> are familiar with, with some scattered capitalization work pretty well.

I'm not sure how often you can try a password against a FileVault 2 Volume. If
there is any wait period than any password not listed int eh 1000 most common
may be enough.

However, in general, anything under 12 characters is unacceptable.

-- 
Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57582

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> I'm not sure how often you can try a password against a FileVault 2 Volume. If
> there is any wait period than any password not listed int eh 1000 most common
> may be enough.

As far as I know, Apple is not doing (as we call it in the VMS world)
break-in evasion.  I think it'd be good if they did, even though there
is some risk of it being used in a denial of service attack.  The VMS
default is after three failed login attempts, you're locked out (even
with the real password) for 15 minutes.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57592

In message <lf5knj$d8b$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

>> I'm not sure how often you can try a password against a FileVault 2 Volume. If
>> there is any wait period than any password not listed int eh 1000 most common
>> may be enough.

> As far as I know, Apple is not doing (as we call it in the VMS world)
> break-in evasion.  I think it'd be good if they did, even though there
> is some risk of it being used in a denial of service attack.  The VMS
> default is after three failed login attempts, you're locked out (even
> with the real password) for 15 minutes.

that's not exactly what I meant.

For example, you may be able to try 1,000,000 passwords a second against a
filevault volume, or because of the way the password is queried, you may be
able to only try 1,000 a second. If you are 'rate-limited' to 1,000 a second,
then a 'weak' password is now much much stronger than it was.

Locking users out of accounts after too many failed attempts doesn't really
work in the real world.

"I'm sorry Dave, i can't allow you to try to use your own computer you
purchased with your own hardware for the next 15 minuts because the cat walked
on the keyboard. Oh, the cat walked on the keyboard again, you're now locked
out for 24 hours."

-- 
Didn't pay my exorcism bill, got repossessed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57597

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> For example, you may be able to try 1,000,000 passwords a second against a
> filevault volume, or because of the way the password is queried, you may be
> able to only try 1,000 a second. If you are 'rate-limited' to 1,000 a second,
> then a 'weak' password is now much much stronger than it was.

Well, it's somewhat rate-limited due to the 1000s of trips through hashing.
But, probably not so much with today's hardware.

> Locking users out of accounts after too many failed attempts doesn't really
> work in the real world.
> 
> "I'm sorry Dave, i can't allow you to try to use your own computer you
> purchased with your own hardware for the next 15 minuts because the cat walked
> on the keyboard. Oh, the cat walked on the keyboard again, you're now locked
> out for 24 hours."

There are those who agree with you, but I'm not one of them.  Seeing
something like this doesn't bother me at all...

    Last interactive login on Wednesday,  2-JUN-2010 11:06:17.08
    Last non-interactive login on Wednesday,  2-JUN-2010 15:24:30.13
      771 login failures since last successful login

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57565

Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> writes:

> How many characters do you reckon a strong password should have? The
> longer the better for strength, but the shorter the better for the
> occasions (and there are quite a few of them) when one has to enter an
> admin user's password. I don't have a feel for the balance between these
> and would welcome opinions.

I'm reasonably sure recent OS X versions (from 10.8 or maybe 10.7)
allow up to 32 byte passwords.  Previous versions stopped at 8, even
though you could type more chars in.

http://support.apple.com/kb/TA20725

http://diceware.com has lots of useful password info, mostly here -

http://world.std.com/%7Ereinhold/dicewarefaq.html#login

Somewhere on this site is info about the above move to longer strings,
but if you're curious about that, you'll have to find it yourself.  

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57589

<billy@MIX.COM> wrote:

> I'm reasonably sure recent OS X versions (from 10.8 or maybe 10.7)
> allow up to 32 byte passwords.  Previous versions stopped at 8, even
> though you could type more chars in.

I've just checked that Apple's Password Assistant in Mavericks goes up
to 31 characters.

I guess I should cjange my eleven character password by lengthening it.
-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web