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 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Firefox improvements. |
| Message-ID | <263cd$561a967a$d47876e2$46985@news.ziggo.nl> |
Oh and by the way... The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements ever !!! It must be 8 to 15 characters.. must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a special character ?! wtf ?! This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put the special requirements at the back ! It's fokking stupid ! Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 13:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s46l1b1q5sbqff3lgitvqprbvk1mdqg4ad@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32711 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >Oh and by the way... > >The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >ever !!! You're a goddamned idiot, child. > >It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >special character ?! > >wtf ?! And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going on. > >This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >the special requirements at the back ! It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking better. Grow the fuck up, you cross-posting retarded little piece of Usenet troll dumbfuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mveb7b$9sd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32713 |
On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> Oh and by the way... >> >> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >> ever !!! > > You're a goddamned idiot, child. >> >> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >> special character ?! >> >> wtf ?! > > And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to > secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, > and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going > on. >> >> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >> the special requirements at the back ! > > It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking > better. Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 14:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7vscnFfe0cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32714 |
On 2015-10-11 18:55:34 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
>> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters..
>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a
>>> special character ?!
>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking
>> better.
>
> Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9].
> There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them
> have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an
> adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%).
> Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be
> ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule.
>
> Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is
> harder than "having more candidate keys to test"?
Richard, you are assuming that passwords will be chosen uniformly over
the set of possible passwords, and so, quite correctly under that
assumption, point out that any restrictions reduce the number of
possible outcomes, and thus make it weaker.
But these password policies (as misguided as they often are) understand
that passwords are created by humans, and humans do so non-uniformly.
Let's look at a simple case. Imagine two systems that define sets of
possible passwords A and B.
A set of strings {s | s matches /[a-zA-Z0-9]{8,15}/ }
B is A minus { s | s is among the top 10000 most frequently used passwords }
B contains everything A contains except for some common passwords. Thus
Bis a proper subset of A, and so in a very specific sense is weaker.
But which set of requirements is going to get people to use stronger
passwords?
When asking people to create passwords, I think that imposing B is a
far better choice than imposing A. (Not that I'm actually happy with
either, but I'm only interested in contrasting A and B at this point.)
I suspect that you will agree.
So keep in mind what the design goal of password restrictions is. They
are willing to reduce the space of possible passwords in order to
encourage better choice of individual passwords.
Do password requirements meet their design goals?
For the most part, "no"; these do not reach their design goals. Indeed
some of the restrictions and notions of what makes a strong password
has become a bit of a cargo cult. There are some cases where these
sorts of things can help, but again, it is hard to get real data on
this and the various experimental studies show a lot of sensitively to
the very specific requirements and how they are presented to the user.
Another difficulty is that the particular restrictions change in their
usefulness over time. There may have been a time when forcing people to
include a digit in their passwords was a good idea, but the value of
that shifts over time, particularly as attackers learn what sorts of
behaviors those rules produce.
So (dumb) password restrictions should be looked at in terms of the
actual problem they are trying to solve and on how well they do that.
The design goal is reasonable, but we should be careful to not do more
harm than good.
All of this changes if passwords aren't created by humans, but instead
are created by something that does pull uniformly from the set of
possible passwords meeting the requirements. Once you have that
procedure, then anything that reduces the set of possible passwords is
a bad idea. <ShillingMode>Now if everyone used a good password manager,
then their passwords would be generated uniformly, and we wouldn't have
to worry about how humans create passwords.</ShillingMode>
Cheers,
-j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvee9d$m38$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32715 |
On 11/10/15 20:42, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On 2015-10-11 18:55:34 +0000, Richard Heathfield said: > >> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >>> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>> special character ?! > >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. >> >> Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. >> There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them >> have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an >> adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space >> (24.48+%). Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search >> space can be ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper >> case rule. >> >> Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is >> harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? > > Richard, you are assuming that passwords will be chosen uniformly over > the set of possible passwords, and so, quite correctly under that > assumption, point out that any restrictions reduce the number of > possible outcomes, and thus make it weaker. Right. > But these password policies (as misguided as they often are) understand > that passwords are created by humans, and humans do so non-uniformly. Undoubtedly. But the claim was that such restrictions make *brute force* attacks harder... which they don't. They make brute force attacks easier. Their benefit lies not in weakening brute force attacks (because they don't), but in weakening dictionary attacks. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Password restrictions [Was: Firefox improvements.] |
| Message-ID | <d8a9n0F4befU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
On 2015-10-11 19:47:53 +0000, Richard Heathfield said: > On 11/10/15 20:42, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >> Richard, you are assuming that passwords will be chosen uniformly over >> the set of possible passwords, and so, quite correctly under that >> assumption, point out that any restrictions reduce the number of >> possible outcomes, and thus make it weaker. > > Right. > >> But these password policies (as misguided as they often are) understand >> that passwords are created by humans, and humans do so non-uniformly. > > Undoubtedly. But the claim was that such restrictions make *brute > force* attacks harder... which they don't. They make brute force > attacks easier. > > Their benefit lies not in weakening brute force attacks (because they > don't), but in weakening dictionary attacks. You are now assuming that there are only two kinds of attacks on passwords: 1. Brute force attacks that try to exhaust the entire space 2. Dictionary attacks that go after a fixed list of known passwords But unless we have really short passwords (1) is never used, and (2) is usually just the first phase of a real password cracking attack. Roughly speaking there are two kinds of password crackers that take into account human password choice (after they move on from their dictionary attack) A. Pattern-Transformation schemes B. Markov models (there are other schemes and various hybrids, but the details don't matter.) These schemes are able to find novel passwords (things that aren't in some dictionary) but still guess at "more likely ones" first (so not brute force). Quite simply, brute force attacks is not the appropriate threat model for human generated passwords. While dictionary attacks are tried first, they aren't the only attack. People who crack passwords aren't dumb, and neither are the tools they develop. Cheers, -j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 16:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <92gl1b9ms3670hoofk13bbnuecbveqivt3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32714 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:55:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>> Oh and by the way... >>> >>> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >>> ever !!! >> >> You're a goddamned idiot, child. >>> >>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>> special character ?! >>> >>> wtf ?! >> >> And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to >> secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, >> and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going >> on. >>> >>> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >>> the special requirements at the back ! >> >> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >> better. > >Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. >There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them >have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an >adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). >Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be >ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. > >Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is >harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is harder, not easier. And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, therefore the number of permutations is greater. Perhaps you meant to answer HIS post, not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvehmc$33o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32717 |
On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>> special character ?! >>>> >>>> wtf ?! >>> >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. > Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is > harder, not easier. > > And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the > permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, > therefore the number of permutations is greater. In theory the number of permutations is larger. But adding special requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. For example, given that there needs to be a mix of upper and lower case, many people will just have a capital at the start. If a digit is needed, some just stick '1' at the end. Then a likely pattern is A-Z followed by lower-case letters followed by 1. When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fgjl1b1n8tl5u3e9c575nubkn0gjh31cr8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32718 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > >>> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > >>>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>>> special character ?! >>>>> >>>>> wtf ?! > >>>> >>>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>>> better. > >> Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is >> harder, not easier. >> >> And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the >> permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, >> therefore the number of permutations is greater. > >In theory the number of permutations is larger. But adding special >requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. > >For example, given that there needs to be a mix of upper and lower case, >many people will just have a capital at the start. If a digit is needed, >some just stick '1' at the end. Then a likely pattern is A-Z followed by >lower-case letters followed by 1. > >When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mven6p$m01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32719 |
On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > .... >> >>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. > > Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ejpl1b9d9qimo6votfi6frmnmj4n1teiv9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32721 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >.... >>> >>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. >> >> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. > >Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8085mFiadgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32722 |
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: > >>On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>.... >>>> >>>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as >>>>before. >>> >>> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. >> >>Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >>postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. > > Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting. If those computers have functional USB ports the directory of security and his boss should be fired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pprl1b56nocfilktsm0a9nucq7tooolict@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32723 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:03:17 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Gave us: >"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote: > >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >> <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >> >>>On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>.... >>>>> >>>>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as >>>>>before. >>>> >>>> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. >>> >>>Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >>>postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. >> >> Absolute cause for dismissal in a gov contracted lab setting. > >If those computers have functional USB ports the directory of security and >his boss should be fired. Does not matter. We were not even allowed into the lab with a memory device, or even a phone containing a camera. There were lock boxes outside the lab for depositing phones into if you forgot to leave it in your locker. And no water fountains either. :-) We had labs in which you were not even allowed to have a writing utensil or paper on your person when you entered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5s1m1bpg7alhtcqinlbf8ic9ufkd6uh85g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32721 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:18:02 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >.... >>> >>>When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>>it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. >> >> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. > >Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. It might not have been the office mate but it will be if you leave your wallet open on the desk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 20:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8b0tsF9u1pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32721 |
[posting to sci.crypt only.] On 2015-10-11 22:18:02 +0000, William Unruh said: > On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> > .... >>> >>> When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>> then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid changing >>> it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>> the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as before. >> >> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. > > Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the > postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. I agree. I have advised, under some very specific conditions, that people do write down passwords. More broadly, when you have to make various security choices, it is a good idea to develop a coherent threat model. Otherwise, you end up with a cargo cult of people following rules that are distinctly inappropriate for their actual circumstances. I think that what we are observing in this thread is a debate between different varieties of cargo cults, with very little thought going into why the rules developed in the first place and what they are good (and bad) for. Cheers, -j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 09:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvqaog$86l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32985 |
On 16/10/15 02:07, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > [posting to sci.crypt only.] > > On 2015-10-11 22:18:02 +0000, William Unruh said: > >> On 2015-10-11, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 21:45:59 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >> .... >>>> >>>> When the requirements require even more hoops such as needing a symbol, >>>> then the password is so hard to remember that people will avoid >>>> changing >>>> it for as long as possible, or they just use a pattern such as A&1 at >>>> the start to satisfy them, then they will use the same password as >>>> before. >>> >>> Or write it on a Post-It stuck to the corner of the monitor. >> >> Depends on the attacker. If it is someone in China, the password on the >> postit note is fine. If it is an office mate, not so fine. > > I agree. > > I have advised, under some very specific conditions, that people do write > down passwords. > > More broadly, when you have to make various security choices, it is a good > idea to develop a coherent threat model. Otherwise, you end up with a cargo > cult of people following rules that are distinctly inappropriate for their > actual circumstances. > > I think that what we are observing in this thread is a debate between > different varieties of cargo cults, with very little thought going into > why the rules developed in the first place and what they are good (and > bad) for. What you were observing from /my/ contributions to this thread was a specific rebuttal of one particular claim - i.e. that adding password restrictions (reducing the size of the keyspace) makes brute force attacks more difficult. Whatever one's definition of brute force (whether or not it can take advantage of some knowledge of the key), such restrictions cannot possibly make that search /more/ difficult. I don't think there's anything even remotely cargo-cultish about such a rebuttal. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 11:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8convFng7fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32991 |
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in who I was talking about. On 2015-10-16 08:01:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield said: > What you were observing from /my/ contributions to this thread was a > specific rebuttal of one particular claim - i.e. that adding password > restrictions (reducing the size of the keyspace) makes brute force > attacks more difficult. Right. You are correcting someone who is simply wrong about the math. Of course you are right. And as that goes without saying, I guess I haven't been saying it loud enough. I was trying to bring the discussion beyond that simple mathematical fact. > Whatever one's definition of brute force (whether or not it can take > advantage of some knowledge of the key), such restrictions cannot > possibly make that search /more/ difficult. > > I don't think there's anything even remotely cargo-cultish about such a > rebuttal. You are right. I was speculating that the cargo cult of password restrictions is what has put us in a position where we need to rebut things that are clearly wrong. Cheers, -j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvrbjh$2fj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32998 |
On 16/10/15 17:59, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in who I was talking about. Was I being excessively prickly? I apologise. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf76q$qbg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32718 |
On 11/10/15 21:45, Bartc wrote: > On 11/10/2015 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > >>> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > >>>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>>> special character ?! >>>>> >>>>> wtf ?! > >>>> >>>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search >>>> hacking >>>> better. > >> Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is >> harder, not easier. >> >> And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the >> permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, >> therefore the number of permutations is greater. > > In theory the number of permutations is larger. No, in theory and in practice, there are more permutations of 8-15 characters than there are of 8-15 characters containing at least one digit and a mix of upper and lower case. > But adding special > requirements could conceivably make it easier to guess. If by "could conceivably" you mean "does" and if by "guess" you mean brute force (which is the context of my reply), you are right. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvf71o$qbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32717 |
On 11/10/15 21:02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:55:34 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> On 11/10/15 18:13, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:03:56 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" >>> <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> Oh and by the way... >>>> >>>> The intel community website... has the most annoying password requirements >>>> ever !!! >>> >>> You're a goddamned idiot, child. >>>> >>>> It must be 8 to 15 characters.. >>>> must contain lower and upper and a fokking digit or something and/or a >>>> special character ?! >>>> >>>> wtf ?! >>> >>> And now you show just how stupid you really are as it relates to >>> secure login crypto. More folks use the site for real business purpose, >>> and only childish idiots like you are too stupid to know what is going >>> on. >>>> >>>> This will not make it more secure at all... because people will probably put >>>> the special requirements at the back ! >>> >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. >> >> Assume an 8-character password, with legal characters [A-Z][a-z][0-9]. >> There are 218340105584896 such passwords, but 53459728531456 of them >> have no digits. Thus, even ignoring the upper/lower case rule, an >> adversary can eliminate almost a quarter of the search space (24.48+%). >> Even with 15-character passwords, around 7% of the search space can be >> ignored. And that's not even including the lower/upper case rule. >> >> Could you please explain how "having fewer candidate keys to test" is >> harder than "having more candidate keys to test"? > > Maybe you are illiterate. Note that I said that the longer string is > harder, not easier. I don't think I'm illiterate, although I would certainly welcome your views. But you actually said: >>> It doesn't matter, idiot. It still foils brute force search hacking >>> better. The only "it" to which you could be referring in the text that I have available is the rule that characters must contain at least one upper case character, one lower case character, and one digit, as well as being in the range 8-15 characters long. It is not clear to me how ABCDeFGHIJ is "longer" than ABCDEFGHIJ. If you would care to explain that, I would be most grateful. > And the list of available characters is longer as well, therefore the > permutation count is much bigger. The "legal character" list is bigger, > therefore the number of permutations is greater. The number of strings of length 8-15 is considerably greater than the number of strings of length 8-15 with at least one upper case letter, at least one lower case letter, and at least one digit. Adding the restrictions reduces the list of available characters. It does not increase the list. > Perhaps you meant to answer HIS post, not mine. No, I don't believe so. I was responding to the incorrect claim that reducing the key search space makes brute force more difficult, which it doesn't. It makes /dictionary/ attacks easier, but not brute force. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web