9 ms·
This is pretty cool. One improvement that would be nice to see is strength checking on weak "spatial" passwords: I was able to eventually get it to say my passw
by itafroma 13y ago
This is pretty cool. One improvement that would be nice to see is strength checking on weak "spatial" passwords: I was able to eventually get it to say my password was strong just by walking down the keyboard (e.g., "qwertyioup..." or "qazxswedc...").
- dylangs1030 13y agoSame here. I typed in a word and kept typing without numbers until it registered from very weak to strong. But a simple brute force would make short work of such a "source" password.
- LancerSykera 13y ago'I like to eat boogers' is strong. Not against a dictionary attack, I don't think.
- gtrubetskoy 13y agoIt may actually be pretty strong - you have 5 words out of, let's say 2000 "frequently used English words" (totally picked the 2K number out of the air, and "boogers" is probably not as common) - you have 31,840,279,800,048,000 possibilities (according to wolfram-alpha "2000 choose permutations of 5").
- rpearl 13y agoYou can see exactly how it is calculating the strength (and it includes spatial patterns; enough length and you do get some entropy out of it) here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/209/zxcvbn/test/index.html https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/209/zxcvbn/test/index.ht...
- gtrubetskoy 13y agoThis wasn't about password strength calculation - this is really a question to the maintainers of https://github.com/lowe/zxcvbn https://github.com/lowe/zxcvbn.