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 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 10:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvii2h$isf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
On 13/10/2015 02:20, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote:
>> 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.
Does it? People might just use the same simple passwords as above, but
change them to:
Aaaaaaaa1
Aaaaaaab1
Aaaaaaac1
(Didn't you watch The Hangover? Can't remember if it was part I or II.)
Anyway, that's what /I/ do because I don't like being told what to put
in my passwords. I'd much rather not have such rules, but have case
insensitive passwords that can include spaces. Then it's easier to have
a long password that is also easy to remember and easier to type.
Also, if there are many different passwords for different purposes, it's
also easier for people if those requirements are satisfied by a similar
pattern (eg. capital at the start, digit at the end) even if the actual
password is different.
Complex passwords with mixed case are a nuisance because usually /you
can't see what you're typing/. Some machines don't even have a caps lock
indicator.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvjahq$f9j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32806 |
In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/2015 02:20, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote:
> >> 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.
> Does it? People might just use the same simple passwords as above,
> but change them to:
> Aaaaaaaa1
> Aaaaaaab1
> Aaaaaaac1
Human reality is that yes, it makes little difference because humans
will do the above. And password crackers are already programmed to try
those combinations first, because humans are more likely to do
something like that, making the attack succeed sooner than it would
otherwise.
The fact is that when one adds human failings into the mix, that
Skybuck was correct, the 'restrictions' don't in fact make anything
more secure, because humans will still do things that are easy to
forsee and accomodate.
In reality, the real reason for the restriction is likely one of the
below:
1) some project manager heard that this was a 'good idea' and put the
requirement in for the dev's to build - without understanding what
ie was the 'idea' was working towards;
2) some regulatory requirement (govt. or ISO) includes a checkbox on
the compliance form that says "passwords must contain X, Y, Z" and
so that is what was implimented;
Much more likely to be #2 than #1. It is there to satisify some
checkbox on some form for some kind of audit purpose.
> Complex passwords with mixed case are a nuisance because usually /you
> can't see what you're typing/. Some machines don't even have a caps
> lock indicator.
Best is no restrictions on any character use by the 'login' system, and
use of a password manager by the humans logging in, so that the
password manager handles generating proper random gibberish passwords,
and exactly types/pastes them in perfectly to the "password" prompt
each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators.
PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two
shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in
ALL CAPS all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvjc4d$ofa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32816 |
On 2015-10-13, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. > > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in > ALL CAPS all the time. Spoken by someone whose fingers have never hit the caps lock key by accident when typing "a" or "shift" > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvjjre$qef$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32823 |
In sci.crypt William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-13, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. > > > > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two > > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in > > ALL CAPS all the time. > Spoken by someone whose fingers have never hit the caps lock key by > accident when typing "a" or "shift" Well, actually, yes, my fingers never hit the caps lock key by accident because I always remap it to a control key on all of my computers. So therefore, it is impossible for me to hit it by accident, because it is no longer a caps lock key anymore (on my systems).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9vgr1bt59nrcahhjrestac1gcojfpmrjbd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32831 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:51:26 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >In sci.crypt William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >> On 2015-10-13, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> > each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. > >> > >> > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two >> > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in >> > ALL CAPS all the time. > >> Spoken by someone whose fingers have never hit the caps lock key by >> accident when typing "a" or "shift" > >Well, actually, yes, my fingers never hit the caps lock key by accident >because I always remap it to a control key on all of my computers. > >So therefore, it is impossible for me to hit it by accident, because it >is no longer a caps lock key anymore (on my systems). > Smart(decidedly)ass. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <adgr1b9qsoht8jlmac1mndakdldkiobol5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32823 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:39:41 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >On 2015-10-13, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. > >> >> PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two >> shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in >> ALL CAPS all the time. > >Spoken by someone whose fingers have never hit the caps lock key by >accident when typing "a" or "shift" > > This is why the indicator gets put into the interface. As a flag to an individual whom may have left it on or inadvertently turned it on. Personally, I like temporary "unhide" keys or full time unhide checkboxes as most folks do not enter such keys with onlookers about anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 18:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvjdvl$1he$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32816 |
On 13/10/2015 17:12, Rich wrote: > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> Complex passwords with mixed case are a nuisance because usually /you >> can't see what you're typing/. Some machines don't even have a caps >> lock indicator. > > Best is no restrictions on any character use by the 'login' system, and > use of a password manager by the humans logging in, so that the > password manager handles generating proper random gibberish passwords, > and exactly types/pastes them in perfectly to the "password" prompt > each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. I've never used one of these. So who or what types in the master password? Where is it stored? If the owner of the password doesn't need to remember it or physically type it in, how do you stop access to an unauthorised person? > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in > ALL CAPS all the time. I said caps lock *indicator*. Ie. some sort of LED. They seem to be going out of fashion. On Swiss keyboards, they had separate Caps On/Caps Off keys, so you could quickly press one to be sure of where you were. Otherwise some feedback is necessary to tell you if you're in caps mode or not. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvjkiq$rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32826 |
In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/2015 17:12, Rich wrote:
> > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> Complex passwords with mixed case are a nuisance because usually
> >> /you can't see what you're typing/. Some machines don't even have
> >> a caps lock indicator.
> >
> > Best is no restrictions on any character use by the 'login' system,
> > and use of a password manager by the humans logging in, so that the
> > password manager handles generating proper random gibberish
> > passwords, and exactly types/pastes them in perfectly to the
> > "password" prompt each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock
> > indicators.
> I've never used one of these.
I use Password Gorilla (https://github.com/zdia/gorilla/wiki) which is
compatible with the PasswordSafe file format that Bruce Schiner
designed. I recomment Password Gorilla, but you are free of course to
choose something else.
> So who or what types in the master password?
You, the operator, type it in to 'unlock' the stored passwords in the
encrypted file on disk.
> Where is it stored?
In the case of the PasswordSafe file format, it is *never* stored
anywhere. It is passed through a password stretching algorithm (think
bcrypt or scrypt, only not those because the file format predates them)
to generate a 'key' that is used to encrypt/decrypt the stored file.
But the actual master password is not stored anywhere.
> If the owner of the password doesn't need to remember it or
> physically type it in, how do you stop access to an unauthorised
> person?
You do need to remember the master password, and you do need to type it
in. But since you are remembering the same one for all of your
passwords, and you are typing it in fairly often, you have a chance to
actually memorize it, and get good at typing it in. And you can make
it of arbitrary length and complexity.
Unauthorized access is handled two ways:
1) the file on disk is encrypted (Twofish in the case of the PasswordSafe
format)
2) the operator has to type in the master password to gain access
(decrypt) the passwords stored in the file on disk
3) the GUI has a 'lock timer' such that the application 'locks'
(similar to a screen locker, but just for the application) after a
user defined amount of idle time (the master password/phrase is
used to unlock a locked application)
4) at least in the case of Password Gorilla, there is also a "lock
now" command that one can use to make sure it is locked in
instances where one does not want to wait for the timer to expire
The big advantage is that the (literally) hundreds of websites that
one ends up registering for over time can each have a completely
independent, randomly derived, password. All are stored in the
manager, and you, the user, do not even need to know what each websites
password is, you just have to remember the master password/phrase.
This alleviates the panic when "site X has it's passwords compromised".
If you have an account on site X, then yes, someone can access site X,
but that same password is useless anywhere else, because you've never
used it anywhere else. So you change the password for site X (letting
the tool generate a new random password), save your encrypted file to
disk, and go on about your day.
The other advantate is you don't 'forget' what the password is to that
site you use every 18 months for some reason. You just run a search on
your local application, find the site, and you've got the password you
need to log in with, and you didn't have to remember anything.
> > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? That's what the two
> > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in
> > ALL CAPS all the time.
> I said caps lock *indicator*. Ie. some sort of LED. They seem to be
> going out of fashion. On Swiss keyboards, they had separate Caps On/Caps
> Off keys, so you could quickly press one to be sure of where you were.
> Otherwise some feedback is necessary to tell you if you're in caps mode
> or not.
Ah, yes, feedback to know what mode the keyboard is set into... True,
newer keyboards seem to be loosing those leds. That's probably why MS
added the "caps lock is on" warnings to their login GUI's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11hr1b5nrdrhitfvf4lcpu8mubbbsm92m9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32832 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:03:54 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> Gave us: >Ah, yes, feedback to know what mode the keyboard is set into... True, >newer keyboards seem to be loosing those leds. That's probably why MS >added the "caps lock is on" warnings to their login GUI's. Also because folks look at their screen as they type, not at their keyboard status indicators. Some now have on-screen indicators. ISTR my Sony Viao 21" Tap20 being that way, since the wireless KB chose to save power by not having said indicators on the KB itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvjrd2$vrp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32816 |
On 13/10/15 17:12, Rich wrote: > In sci.crypt Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 13/10/2015 02:20, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/12/15 12:32 PM, Rich wrote: > >>>> 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. > >> Does it? People might just use the same simple passwords as above, >> but change them to: > >> Aaaaaaaa1 >> Aaaaaaab1 >> Aaaaaaac1 > > Human reality is that yes, it makes little difference because humans > will do the above. And password crackers are already programmed to try > those combinations first, because humans are more likely to do > something like that, making the attack succeed sooner than it would > otherwise. > > The fact is that when one adds human failings into the mix, that > Skybuck was correct, the 'restrictions' don't in fact make anything > more secure, because humans will still do things that are easy to > forsee and accomodate. > > In reality, the real reason for the restriction is likely one of the > below: > > 1) some project manager heard that this was a 'good idea' and put the > requirement in for the dev's to build - without understanding what > ie was the 'idea' was working towards; > 2) some regulatory requirement (govt. or ISO) includes a checkbox on > the compliance form that says "passwords must contain X, Y, Z" and > so that is what was implimented; > > Much more likely to be #2 than #1. It is there to satisify some > checkbox on some form for some kind of audit purpose. > > >> Complex passwords with mixed case are a nuisance because usually /you >> can't see what you're typing/. Some machines don't even have a caps >> lock indicator. > > Best is no restrictions on any character use by the 'login' system, and > use of a password manager by the humans logging in, so that the > password manager handles generating proper random gibberish passwords, > and exactly types/pastes them in perfectly to the "password" prompt > each time. With or without feedback or caps-lock indicators. > > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? People who, for some reason (amputation, broken arm in a cast, holding a parcel or a hot drink, or whatever it is), are only able to type with one hand, and whose hand is too small (or it's too painful for them) to span the gap between SHIFT and the letter. > That's what the two > shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for when you want to type in > ALL CAPS all the time. Caps lock is a tool. Like any good tool, it can sometimes be productively used in ways not necessarily envisaged by its designers. -- 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 | 2015-10-13 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvjv5b$dmf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32836 |
In sci.crypt Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > > PS - who uses caps lock to type a capital letter? > People who, for some reason (amputation, broken arm in a cast, > holding a parcel or a hot drink, or whatever it is), are only able to > type with one hand, and whose hand is too small (or it's too painful > for them) to span the gap between SHIFT and the letter. Fair enough. This comment brought up memories of a project manager at work who, literally, used the caps lock key to type capital letters. The machine he had was configured to pop up the windows 'alert' when caps lock was toggled, and so anytime he connected to a projector for work and went to type anything, you could watch: <caps lock is on> A <caps lock is off> <space> new thing shall do ... > > That's what the two shift keys are there for.... Caps lock is for > > when you want to type in ALL CAPS all the time. > Caps lock is a tool. Like any good tool, it can sometimes be > productively used in ways not necessarily envisaged by its designers. True. My comment was 'colored' by memories of watching this guy type single capital letters by caps locking. And he had none of your above listed handicaps to cause caps lock to be a necessity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tvmn1b90lb5c4fepacdhk5kbliimloikpm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: > A brute force attack tries all the >keys until it finds the right one. Ding! That's what *I* said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgnl5$lhb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32769 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > > A brute force attack tries all the > >keys until it finds the right one. > Ding! > That's what *I* said. But the point you keep missing is that "tries all the keys" is defined in the context of the restricted rules of "must include one lower, one upper, one number, one punctuation, etc." When you have no rule, these four below are "keys that must be tested": abcdefgh hgfedcba AbCdEfGh HgFeDcBa but, if you add a rule "must contatin at least one upper case letter", then the first two do not ever need to be tested, because they violate the rule of "one upper case letter". So for the above, half they keys do not even need to be tested. With no rule: must test the four above. With the rule: must test only 1/2 of the above. The point you keep missing is that "all they keys" is defined in the context of the applied "rules". With no rules, "all the keys" really means every possible combination of anything. With the rules, then "all the keys" really means "all the possible combinations *that meet the rules*". Which is a smaller set than "every possible combination of anything".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvgo0o$oe2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32769 |
On 10/12/2015 12:15 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:18:53 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> A brute force attack tries all the >> keys until it finds the right one. > > Ding! > > That's what *I* said. Key point: it tests all of the permitted keys. Fewer permitted keys - shorter search. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Gladman <blindanagram@nowhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 18:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ccOdnVfQ793heobLnZ2dnUU78X-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
On 12/10/2015 14:18, Richard Heathfield wrote: > 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. Blind brute force and dictionary based attacks are just points towards each end of a wide spectrum of key search techniques. In a brute force attack, the attacker can choose the order in which keys are tested and, where information is available on the relative probability of keys of particular forms, this can certainly be used to speed up such attacks on average by testing more likely keys earlier in the search. Which is why 'human psychology' information can be useful even in brute force searches and also why search order is not necessarily irreleavnt in such attacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 13:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ldqn1b9enue22eok4sbb795re3fecs7u46@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32781 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:01:49 +0100, Brian Gladman <blindanagram@nowhere.net> Gave us: >On 12/10/2015 14:18, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> 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. > >Blind brute force and dictionary based attacks are just points towards >each end of a wide spectrum of key search techniques. > >In a brute force attack, the attacker can choose the order in which keys >are tested and, where information is available on the relative >probability of keys of particular forms, this can certainly be used to >speed up such attacks on average by testing more likely keys earlier in >the search. > >Which is why 'human psychology' information can be useful even in brute >force searches and also why search order is not necessarily irreleavnt >in such attacks. I am pretty sure I am supposed to say "thanks" here. But everyone thinks I am stupid so... I think Donald Trump followers are stupid. The rotten bastard is a criminal and I cannot believe so many dopes are Trumpnotized by his bullshit and insults and hats and kool-aid. I think they should do us all, and the human gene pool a big favor and go have some Jim Jones Kool-Aid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvgikr$v34$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32757 |
In sci.crypt DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@decadentlinuxuser.org> 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.
> 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.
Except that the 'restrictions' are publicly known. So an attacker
choosing to perform a brute force search against a password that he/she
knows to require "at least one upper, one lower case, one digit, one
punctuation" will simply skip over passwords of the form:
aaaaaaaa
aaaaaaab
aaaaaaac
aAaAaAaA
BbBbBbBb
None of those could possibly be a valid password, given the
restrictions, so they will simply skip immediately over them. Reducing
the set size for brute force search from "all possible combinations" to
a subset of all possible combinations.
Bruce force password search systems are not always so mindless as to do
this:
candidate = 'aaaaaaaa';
while doesNotMatch(password, candidate) {
increment(candidate);
}
That is the 'classroom' example, real password crackers (see
JackTheRipper) can be customized to skip over whole ranges of known to
be invalid combinations of characters, substantially speeding up the
search by not having to test all possible combinations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 03:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvhsg8$541$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #32766 |
In comp.lang.c Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: (snip) >> 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. > Except that the 'restrictions' are publicly known. So an attacker > choosing to perform a brute force search against a password that he/she > knows to require "at least one upper, one lower case, one digit, one > punctuation" will simply skip over passwords of the form: But at least some systems tighten the rules without requiring existing users to change the password. (I better not say which ones.) So, even if you know the current rules, that might not be enough. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 12:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v7cq1bpscrg84ld3ioh2b78q1vf6pv3gjr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32800 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:06:48 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >In comp.lang.c Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >(snip) >>> 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. > >> Except that the 'restrictions' are publicly known. So an attacker >> choosing to perform a brute force search against a password that he/she >> knows to require "at least one upper, one lower case, one digit, one >> punctuation" will simply skip over passwords of the form: > >But at least some systems tighten the rules without requiring existing >users to change the password. (I better not say which ones.) > >So, even if you know the current rules, that might not be enough. > One assumes that everyone changes passwords - eventually.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 02:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fqkm1bdkus78jmm2p3gjfcbtpk398bdre6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32738 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 05:46:26 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >Restrictions on allowable keys make brute force easier, not harder. No. It is harder because the set of possible keys is larger, and brute force means each one is attempted whole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web