Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.crypt > #32711 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-21 09:36 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 281 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.crypt
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-11 14:42 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-11 20:47 +0100
Password restrictions [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 13:30 -0500
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. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 20:07 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-16 09:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 11:59 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-16 18:21 +0100
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
Strength from generation restrictions [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-15 15:18 -0500
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. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-13 23:45 +0100
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. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 10:13 -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. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:47 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:56 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 00:52 -0500
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. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 14:35 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:44 +0000
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. 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
Exhaustive searches, brutish and otherwise [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 01:19 -0500
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. 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. 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. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:48 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:52 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 00:53 -0400
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. 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. 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. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. gordonb.wak65@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-12 20:47 -0500
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. 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. gordonb.ll6qm@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-21 18:36 -0500
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.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 00:35 -0500
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.] MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:39 -0700
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 15:33 -0500
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. 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. "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
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 00:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jb6e2bdst7m6b2q5fubrbun0g4e0lsoffj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33093 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:13:13 -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> Gave us: >Seriously. There are people who study this kind of behavior and we've >got relatively decent data on how these policies affect crackability. >(And of course, crackability with tools that are a teensy-tiny bit more >sophisticated then One would have to be physically present to perform a login attempt in our labs. Labs where you do not even get to enter unless your name is on the access list, and you get challenged and checked against the list by others already in the lab. Are you up to speed yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 00:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf6e2bd3arg18b3s44j9al3e5gohj5m0sd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33093 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:13:13 -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> Gave us: >So you assume that on-line attacks are the only threat and that >all entry points to trying those passwords online are sufficiently >locked down? (This must include any points of authentication, including >ones that aren't normally expected to involve human interaction.) The network segment itself is not accessible remotely at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 00:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eh6e2b1hd5ltbppi8s98mq2mo8d87b70nf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33093 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:13:13 -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> Gave us: >The "whole set" already includes digits and symbols without the >restrictions, unless digits and symbols are somehow forbidden. The cracker engine does not know what the set is. Therefore it must use the entire set. That alone makes it harder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvgbil$7aa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32756 |
On 12/10/15 12:08, Bartc wrote: > On 12/10/2015 08:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > >> It gives 62 choices for each and every character. > > Suppose passwords were one character long and you could use any upper or > lower case letter, or a digit. > > Then there would be 62 possible passwords. > > Now the rule is introduced that there must be at least one digit in the > password. The number of legal passwords must now be 10. > > Adding the restriction makes it easier to crack. Well, it makes a brute force attack easier, yes, and that's been my point throughout. These restrictions can, of course, make a *dictionary* attack harder, but a dictionary attack is a lot less work than a brute force attack, so it is worth making dictionary attacks harder at the expense of making brute force attacks easier. Trying to make DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno see the distinction has not been easy. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgi5s$v34$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32749 |
In sci.crypt Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 12/10/15 07:23, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 05:46:26 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > > Gave us: > > > >> 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. > > > > I said "odd character" I meant "special", not an "odd" digit. > I didn't think otherwise. Did I confuse you with my number-guessing > analogy? If so, I apologise for that. I was just trying to explain, in > the Nth way, that fewer choices for a password means easier brute > forcing, and restricting a password by reducing the variety of > characters that you can use means fewer choices for the password, and > therefore easier brute forcing. > It's astonishing that you still can't see this. The two of you are talking past one another. Richard, you are explaining from a more set-theory centric viewpoint. You are starting from a viewpoint of an 8 byte long password with no restrictions on what byte values may exist in any of the eight bytes is a larger set of brute force combinations than an 8 byte long password with restrictions upon what byte values may exist somewhere within the 8 bytes. I.e., the restrictions reduce the set of "all possible passwords" to a smaller subset of "possible passwords that also fit the restrictions". And a smaller set makes brute force easier, because there are less items to try. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, you are explaining from the opposite end. From the human physology end, in that if one asks a typical human (a human who does not understand security concerns well) to 'pick an 8 byte password', invariably one will get a password with all lower case letters in it. However, if one forces that same human to pick '8 characters, with one digit, one lower, one upper, one punctuation' then that same human who would otherwise have picked a password from a set of only 26 lower case characters is now forced to pick a password where there are more total possible combinations (note, it is 'more' because the starting point the human would have used was so small). Both of you are correct, in the arguments you are making, it is just that you are both making different arguments and in the end talking past one another. However, the proper solution from the password picking realm is for everyone to use a password manager tool of some form, and for their passwords to all be randomly chosen from all possible character (or better, all possible byte values). But that will not likely ever happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <70on1b5smf2nlc4j94oepu30934umleck6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32765 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:04:29 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >However, the proper solution from the password picking realm is for >everyone to use a password manager tool of some form, and for their >passwords to all be randomly chosen from all possible character (or >better, all possible byte values). But that will not likely ever >happen. It would then require most users, especially neurally lazy ones, to record or store their password somehow. Actually, I am all for this method. A car that uses a key AND a password would make car theft a thing of the past in almost every case. Crypto hardware typically has a CIK (cryptographic ignition key) as well as individual user access keys. They even get grouped by rank such that only a select few have admin privilege to make system level alterations. In the future, protected high value assets will have active ID modules incorporated into them, and one day humans will likely have implants embedded into their bodies in two places, making even limb (or organ) removal unable to facilitate illicit access. Currently, iris and or retina printing is about as good as it gets, and is really all that is needed, except it has no radio/wireless/non-optical input function. Perhaps well have both iris data and retina data on the RF active implant. Whoop, there it is. Now all the privacy nuts can go off on their mental masturbations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgo02$lhb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32772 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:04:29 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid>
> Gave us:
> >However, the proper solution from the password picking realm is for
> >everyone to use a password manager tool of some form, and for their
> >passwords to all be randomly chosen from all possible character (or
> >better, all possible byte values). But that will not likely ever
> >happen.
> It would then require most users, especially neurally lazy ones, to
> record or store their password somehow.
That is what a 'password manager' does (well, at least it is hard to
call them 'password managers' if they do not "record or store their
password[s]").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_manager:
A password manager is a software application that helps a user
*store* and organize passwords.
The advantage to the *store* part is not having to remember the 15
character, totally random, passwords that the manager creates.
I.e., something like this: 3sbdY3XO!O-V$l=
Which I just created [1] using the password manager that I use: Password
Gorilla (https://github.com/zdia/gorilla/wiki).
[1]: No, it is not in use anywhere, the one above was created only for
this posting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 02:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kpkm1bpl8lt8q8sosmokvjgktb8nfv1s5i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32738 |
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. > >*Without* that rule, we have 62*62*62 = 238328 possible passwords. Not true. Since their position is not part of the rule, the same set applies to each. The attack test has to test all three together, not click off one until a position value is discovered. This isn't "War Games". > >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. No. Your argument is incorrect. It does not "discover" one, then move on with a reduced set. This isn't a bubble sort. > Homeopathic cryptanalysis! Whatever, child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 08:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvfopl$5r0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32745 |
On 12/10/15 07:29, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > 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. >> >> *Without* that rule, we have 62*62*62 = 238328 possible passwords. > > Not true. Since their position is not part of the rule, the same set > applies to each. The attack test has to test all three together, not > click off one until a position value is discovered. This isn't "War > Games". I didn't think for a moment that it was. You're right that position matters, but that just means the number is six times bigger. It's still way less than 238328. >> 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. > > No. Your argument is incorrect. It does not "discover" one, then > move on with a reduced set. This isn't a bubble sort. I don't see what bubble sort has to do with it. A brute force attack must, in the worst case, generate every permutation. You get more permutations if you don't restrict the character set than you get if you do. >> Homeopathic cryptanalysis! > > Whatever, child. I don't see what my age has to do with this. It's mathematics, not psychology. Even if I were only 12 years old, it would not change the fact that brute force attacks on arbitrarily restricted character sets are easier (less work) than brute force attacks on unrestricted character sets. -- 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 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <04bn1bhihmjcvaqrin1kha7bgn4mooem1k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32750 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:53:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >I don't see what my age has to do with this. It's mathematics, not >psychology. Even if I were only 12 years old, it would not change the >fact that brute force attacks on arbitrarily restricted character sets >are easier (less work) than brute force attacks on unrestricted >character sets. The character set is not what is restricted. It remains the same. Brute force attacks start out with the keys which are all lower case, then move up to the more complex keys from there. So the key choice requisite merely forces the user to create or choose a more complex key structure than they *may* normally have done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 14:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvgbs1$8bv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32757 |
On 12/10/15 13:50, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:53:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> I don't see what my age has to do with this. It's mathematics, not >> psychology. Even if I were only 12 years old, it would not change the >> fact that brute force attacks on arbitrarily restricted character sets >> are easier (less work) than brute force attacks on unrestricted >> character sets. > > The character set is not what is restricted. It remains the same. If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* to select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those characters. > Brute force attacks start out with the keys which are all lower case, > then move up to the more complex keys from there. There are *no* "more complex keys". A brute force attack tries all the keys until it finds the right one. The order is irrelevant to the attack, and there is no particular reason to start with all-lower-case keys. Indeed, if one considers ASCII (a very common encoding for passwords), 'A' < 'a', so a brute force search ordered by code point would try upper case keys first, not lower case keys (and of course it would try all-digit keys before that!). > So the key choice requisite merely forces the user to create or choose > a more complex key structure than they *may* normally have done. This is irrelevant to the question of brute force that you raised. -- 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 | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvghap$7ln$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
On 2015-10-12 15:18, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 12/10/15 13:50, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:53:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> >> Gave us: >> >>> [..] > If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case > letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* to > select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those characters. > [...] Enough already! Can't you see he's playing you? Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0umn1b5noafmqqneuivq2v3laud3focu2s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case >letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* to >select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those characters. The position is not, however, and that means it is just as difficult to brute force as when there is no rule in place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 17:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvgn8m$o54$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32768 |
On 12/10/15 17:12, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case >> letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* to >> select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those characters. > > The position is not, however, Very true, but utterly irrelevant. I take on board what others are saying, though, so I'll keep this reply very brief. > and that means it is just as difficult > to brute force as when there is no rule in place. (a) If it does mean that (which it doesn't), then your claim that it "still foils brute force search hacking better"[1] is wrong, because (if it means that) there is no extra work for a brute force attack compared to the work involved in attacking the entire keyspace, but all this is beside the point because... (b) It doesn't mean that at all, for reasons that I have already explained ad nauseam. [1] That was the claim you made in Message-ID: <s46l1b1q5sbqff3lgitvqprbvk1mdqg4ad@4ax.com> and the claim to which I have been responding. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgnb4$lhb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32768 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case > >letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* > >to select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those > >characters. > The position is not, however, and that means it is just as > difficult to brute force as when there is no rule in place. Nope. If there is no rule, then all of the below combinations must be tested until a match is found: aaaaaaaa aaaaaaab aaaaaaac aaaaaaad BBBBBBBB CCCCdddd EEffGGhh gggggggg HHHHHHHH But, if there is a rule that says "must include a numerical digit", then all of the above are invalid according to the rule, and the brute force loop can simply skip over them completely, never having to test them at all (assuming the 'rule' is in fact enforced). Skipping over them completely means "fewer combinations to test". "Fewer combinations to test" means "easier brute force search".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D%YSx.11340$TN3.2701@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #32774 |
On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote: > In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> >> Gave us: > >>> If, for some characters, you are *required* to select a lower case >>> letter, or *required* to select an upper case letter, or *required* >>> to select a digit, then the character set is restricted for those >>> characters. > >> The position is not, however, and that means it is just as >> difficult to brute force as when there is no rule in place. > > Nope. If there is no rule, then all of the below combinations must be > tested until a match is found: > > aaaaaaaa > aaaaaaab > aaaaaaac > aaaaaaad > BBBBBBBB > CCCCdddd > EEffGGhh > gggggggg > HHHHHHHH > > But, if there is a rule that says "must include a numerical digit", > then all of the above are invalid according to the rule, and the brute > force loop can simply skip over them completely, never having to test > them at all (assuming the 'rule' is in fact enforced). > > Skipping over them completely means "fewer combinations to test". > > "Fewer combinations to test" means "easier brute force search". > The key to the rule is that without the rule, most users will choose a simple password, likely with all letters lower case, and very likely a word. That means that a password cracker can stop with a dictionary attack then scanning all lower case. By adding the restriction, the site has made all the users switch from the possibility of these simple passwords to something harder to crack. Yes, this means that for someone that uses complex passwords (the rare person) has their password made a bit easier to crack, but on the scale, decreasing the possible space a bit, but on the scale of things, not that significant (The space is still big enough that brute force cracking is unlikely to succeed, and the crackers will spend more effort on sites vulnerable to the simpler methods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 21:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bboo1bhenahmjr2sku4fpgrh1rvnlgk4vr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:20:35 -0400, Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> Gave us: >On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote: >> In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> >>> Gave us: snipped a bit.... >> Skipping over them completely means "fewer combinations to test". >> >> "Fewer combinations to test" means "easier brute force search". >> > >The key to the rule is that without the rule, most users will choose a >simple password, likely with all letters lower case, and very likely a >word. That means that a password cracker can stop with a dictionary >attack then scanning all lower case. By adding the restriction, the site >has made all the users switch from the possibility of these simple >passwords to something harder to crack. Yes, this means that for someone >that uses complex passwords (the rare person) has their password made a >bit easier to crack, but on the scale, decreasing the possible space a >bit, but on the scale of things, not that significant (The space is >still big enough that brute force cracking is unlikely to succeed, and >the crackers will spend more effort on sites vulnerable to the simpler >methods. I give a psychologically motivated plus one to this. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 08:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <64fae$561c9ea8$d47876e2$1075@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
Give it a rest already. If somebody wants an easy password like: fuck and then intel's bullshit comes along... wtf you think this somebody will do ?1 fu!1 There ya go. Easy peasy cracked. By applieing this psych it's even weaker ! Hence my annoyance with this shit from intel. Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 07:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <c1qp1bpc8bqdmeurmiccbcr98cbtjln4es@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32802 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:03:22 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >Give it a rest already. YOU are the retarded PUNK who posted the off topic horseshit into an electronics newsgroup. YOU need to learn how to TRIM your fucktarded crosspost list BEFORE you hit send, asswipe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 07:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvi85l$imk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
On 13/10/15 02:20, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote: <snip> >> "Fewer combinations to test" means "easier brute force search". >> > > The key to the rule is that without the rule, most users will choose a > simple password, likely with all letters lower case, and very likely a > word. That means that a password cracker can stop with a dictionary > attack then scanning all lower case. Yes, agreed, but the context of the discussion is brute force attacks, not dictionary attacks. The claim was made that adding restrictions makes brute force attacks more difficult, which is of course nonsense. -- 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]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web