3 ms·

You indirectly state that I claim "knowing the character pool of a password lets you reliably predict if n is sufficient." Please point to the part of my state

• Dylan16807 8y ago
  "a function of the size of your character pool, because if your password is short enough for n-1 to contain a significant percentage of possible combinations then it's probably already short enough to brute force anyway" This seems to say that a small character pool, aka "n-1 containing a significant percentage of possible combinations", implies that your password is "probably already short enough to brute force". So small character pool means that "probably" the password is short/weak. I'm saying that a small character pool does not imply that a password is "probably" short/weak. And to be very clear: Using the size of the character pool to say it's "probably" weak is a form of "reliably predict[ing] if n is sufficient". What am I misreading?
  • kakarot 8y ago
    > What am I misreading? > So small character pool means that "probably" the password is short/weak. I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. I never claimed any dependence between the character pool length and password length. They're obviously completely separate properties.
    • Dylan16807 8y ago
      You said that if a password of length n-1 "contains a significant percentage of combinations" compared to a password with length n then "it's probably already short enough to brute force". Right? That percentage comes entirely from the character pool. So character pool -> percentage -> probably short enough to brute force. What am I reading wrong? The only assumption I made is "compared to a password with length n", because what else would you be comparing length "n-1" to. Otherwise it's a direct quote.