3 ms·
This is what you get for encouraging just one type of password strength (i.e. character set) while almost ignoring another (i.e. length). For example I bet thi
by UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
This is what you get for encouraging just one type of password strength (i.e. character set) while almost ignoring another (i.e. length).
For example I bet this wouldn't pass the FBI's requirements:
- Clowns with clown makeup
But this would:
- password123
- simias 14y agoWhy do you think there were such requirements? Amongs the passwords I see: marklevett, looskwoooish or even qwertylolqwerty. Browsing the list the only think I could think they enforced was a minimum character count. I see no whitespace or underscores either. So I guess Clowns.with.clown.makeup would've worked. Anyway, the real issue is: why were those passwords stored as plaintext?
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoMaybe they weren't stored in plaintext, they could have been reversed from the hash. A lot of legacy systems still store passwords in something like 3DES which is trivial to reverse. PS - "reverse" just means using either rainbow tables or generating the entire set for a given hash(n).
- searine 14y agohaha, this is the best password.