6 ms·
How is that any worse or more likely than if you use the same password for all sites and one is compromised? The author clearly states that this is only an alte
by bradjohnson 10y ago
How is that any worse or more likely than if you use the same password for all sites and one is compromised? The author clearly states that this is only an alternative option if you are not willing to use a password manager.
- PeterWhittaker 10y agoThe author clearly states that this is only an alternative option if you are not willing to use a password manager. Which means it is no alternative at all. I'm a professional security consultant. If a client were to ask me to list the alternatives to using a password manager, I would say "Being hacked". They would ask what else? I would say "That's it, that's the list". Bad security advice is as bad as no security advice. Having amateurs provide well-intentioned, well-stated, well-described, terrible, terrible ideas, ideas articulated well enough that they seem plausibly good, and having them being supported by people who ought to know better does the entire industry a disservice. What would I tell my Mom? "I'm sorry, I really am, I know it's hard to use, but it really is the best alternative, the only really secure alternative, unless you want to keep a book of really strong passwords locked in your desk and only ever use your computer there." Which, for average users and average use cases, is no alternative at all.
- bradjohnson 10y agoYou're being purposefully obtuse if you think that every single person that doesn't use a password manager will get hacked... This advice is meant for people who will NOT use a password manager, which, believe it or not, is a large majority of the population. Look at the statistics for password use, it is undeniably more safe to use this method than to use "123456" or "password" which is the most likely alternative.