4 ms·
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense if you actually think about it. Existing passwords are broken in a matter of milliseconds, perhaps a few seconds. Do you honest
by PaulMoore 8y ago
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense if you actually think about it.
Existing passwords are broken in a matter of milliseconds, perhaps a few seconds. Do you honestly believe it's sufficient consolation to an end-user to know it took 40 seconds instead? The end result is the same... they're breached.
My point is simple. We already have FAR superior techniques in 2018 and wasting time advocating questionable techniques is an exercise in futility. The people who follow the advice are still at considerable risk, the majority will ignore it and remain almost as vulnerable.
- guitarbill 8y agoThat's if they're encrypted in the first place. Avoiding re-use is far more important, as others have said in this thread. And humans are bad at remembering random combinations of letters and numbers, but ok at remembering words. If I could get my parents to use a password manager, I would. But until then, three words is better than re-use, and your pedantry still isn't helping the people who need it most, i.e. people lacking technical literacy in the first place.
- PaulMoore 8y agoI'm guessing you mean hashed, or am I being pedantic? ;) Anything is better than re-use, that's not really an argument. If I recommended using "1", "2", "3" for three different sites, that's technically better than reusing the same password... but still not safe. Labelling it as pedantry really ignores the wider point. Having 3 unique passwords which take 40 seconds to break really isn't a great improvement, neither is it pedantic to point out that fact.