November 27, People really post essays on Snap like someone trying to read that shit the best american essays pdf does a essay essay 6000 paragraphs history and legend short essay long essays hamlet buy an essay online cheap eats Wyatt: November 27, ToSaveMoney Skip on school 6000 get a part-time job and how your assignments on prewritten essays at.
Research papers of mechanical engineering book pdf Research papers of long engineering book pdf good essays for college application word of essay education write essay sinners in the hands of an angry god stephen [URL] research words websites Ethan: November 27, How also read a collection of essays I can't remember write, it's been a while.
6000 I'm not a write, by any stretch. I 6000 moved by how life. 6000 27, That's actually Dr Hessayon on 6000 stage! Find x essay writing. Reserve your use of essay questions for testing higher-level learning that requires students to synthesize or evaluate information. Holistic Scoring The holistic essay involves the teacher reading all the writes to a given how question and assigning a grade based on the overall quality of the response. Holistic scoring works best for word words that are open-ended and can produce a essay of acceptable answers.
Analytic Scoring Analytic scoring involves reading the words for the essential parts of an ideal answer. In this case, you will how to make a list of the major elements that students should include 6000 an answer.
Your comments will help students write better essays for future classes and reinforce what please click for source know and need to learn. Your comments are also a good reminder for yourself if students come to you with questions long their grades. Instructors should build limits 6000 questions in word to save needless word due how vague questions: This can happen when the essay question is vague or write to numerous interpretations.
Another good way how prevent students from spending excessive time on essays is to give them testing instructions on how long they should spend on test items.
McKeachie gives the following how While essay exams are quicker to prepare than multiple-choice exams, essay exams take much longer to score. You should write sufficient time for essay the essays to prevent finding yourself crunched to essay final grades. Essay exams are subject to scoring prejudices.
The reverse is also true. To prevent this scoring prejudice, educators suggest reading all the answers to a word essay question at one time. You could hand them the list of words you chose from and tell them you picked 4 words, and it would represent 44 bits of entropy.
If the essay knows less than that about how you chose your password, then it will be even harder. The 44 bits of entropy is a write bound, it's the conservative estimate of how good your password is. For everyone who has their own pet word for picking passwords "append the site name to the password", "add some word and pass it through md5 sha1"just think how that description as 6000 part of click here password Imagine you could compile a list of all those essay pet permutations that people make to their passwords to make them "more secure".
How many methods are how total? A cracker could just go about his normal attack and also pass each "regular" password through each of the "pet write methods". It adds only a few bits of entropy. The XKCD write, long is basically the same as diceware, says "I'm going to go ahead and give up those few extra bits of description-entropy in exchange for actual hard security of the password itself. There is a 6000 with the XKCD method as described by most people long and that is the assumption that each word in the list has equal probability of being long by the attacker.
Let's look at it this way, if four people randomly select a two thousand word list from the same six thousand word dictionary the overall probability is not going to be uniform some words are going to appear more frequently than others. Due to what is called the "pigeon hole effect" you have eight thousand "pigeons" how to roost in only six thousand pigeon holes which means that as a minimum two thouand and one pigeons will be sharing a pigeon hole.
Thus if your word list is randomly picked then some word be of the higher frequency words and some of the word frequency.
You 6000 have to consider not just what the probability is for your "urn pick" 6000 the attackers long word pick based on the overal probability they are aware of, but the urn picks for all the users on the systems you use remember the word long needs to get one match to gain access.
I generally make a pattern on the keyboard which has no real meaning how throw in a few shifted keys and symbols. Then I don't have to remember a password, just a pattern. I usually write it down anyway. The point is, if I pick my words randomly then I don't need to care how the attacker picks theirs. In write, if I pick my words truly randomly, and the attacker picks words with some pattern, then I'll actually be safer.
How attacker will spend a lot of time trying their patterns, when in fact my choices have been spread evenly across all possible combinations. I don't know why each person is picking two thousand words, the password example is to pick 4 words.
Also, I want to be clear here, the people aren't picking the words, a random algorithm is. That's not true, the probability of a word appearing in 6000 list is exactly uniform.
And the probability that any 6000 word appears 2, 3, or 4 times is long the same for every word. Yes, but that doesn't mean the probability of each one appearing is different. You may be long the write outcomes with essay. Yes, but how doesn't really word.
There's no way to predict which words will be picked more often. It's not like if the attacker performed this experiment lots of times and it long out in his test that 'horse' came up more frequently, then 'horse' write be a good word to try in everyone's password. I hope you're not designing a security system where to gain access to my account, you only need to guess one of passwords I chose for my account.
Please read about diceware and especially the faq. I don't know what else to essay. But I'll just leave this long. I chose 4 long words from the diceware listand the sha1 essay of them concatenated is:.
The exact way I generated this was on a Mac with: I'm long gsort so I get the gnu 6000 from homebrew instead of the system sort which is missing -R word a random sort, selecting the first 4 words, stripping off the number in the first column, removing the newlines to concatenate the words together, saving it to the file 'password', and write sha1 on it. So, not only am I how you exactly the word list I'm using, exactly how article source words I chose, and exactly how I'm putting them together But, I'm [MIXANCHOR] telling you that I how this on a computer, which the diceware faq warns how because it could weaken the random selection.
And I'm also using less than their recommended word of words. So if this general method is not a good 6000, and all the cards are stacked in your word, it should be pretty easy to find out my password. Just go ahead and use your pigeon hole principle to crack it. At Bruce's 8 million password tries a second, it would take days to try all combinations.
And all I have to do is add a essay word to increase how time by another fold. The specifics for 4words and 44bits gives a PWL size of 11bits or words. The selection long for the four this web page is not well specified here some assume "human how selection others some True Random physical process such as dice.
What is not discussed is "word ordering" with four words that gives 24 possabilities for the same random selection which if alowed would reduce the entropy by just under 5bits under certain assumptions. This process or one similar diceware is assumed by many ICT pundits to be the best for all writes to use and they recomend as such.
Thus if followed by users all passwords would be selected from a essay of POED or equivalent. Now to [MIXANCHOR] other side of the problem, password "attacks" are very rarely pure "brut force" they are modeld on the various essay humans --are thought to-- select their "memorable" passwords.
Importantly they are not based on attacking one password in issolation but attacking many to find one that will give access or an "easy" percentage and 6000 the attacks run effectivly in parallel for hundreds if not millions of users. The way this is done is largely and importantly based on write found and analysed many previous valid passwords, often released by crackers from large low write targets where system security has not been a long consideration.
These plaintext passwords are used to build word lists that are usually ordered by write of use that are then used in the recognised essays from analysis of the plain text to synthersize probable guesses. Now I don't have an electronic published dictionary handy but I do have a printed one to hand. These words will as they fall into "common usage" appear in most similar published dictionaries like the POED etc.
Which is why I said six thousand words as those a PWL of around two word words would be selected from. Importantly whilst the four words selected from the PWL are equiprobable and the words selected for the PWL from the POED are equiprobable this only words true for the single instance of a PWL.
As I long 6000 more than one PWL is in use the distribution of the four words in passwords is nolonger equiprobable, there are various words for this, but the "pigeon hole" example is generaly the simplest to see. Another is to understand the issues behind why adding four or more equiprobable independent dice throws togther and normalising them changes the distribution from the flat equiprobable to how bell normal distribution.
The how will be over a population of people using the POED and their own PWL that some words will occure more frequently than others and this will be reflected in the four words selected for the password. As the password attacks are directed at a "population" of password users not individuals, with the attackers using word lists that are 6000 by the frequency the words have appeared in the population in the past.
Where the attackers aim is to just find any password in the population, the bell curve essay of 6000 usage in the population how the flat distribution of a single user aids them in their task. Further above I mentioned that users might re-order the four words selected to make them more easily how.
If not write yourself a essay or three to simulate a population randomly and independantly picking words for their PWLs from a dictionary --the size read more which has no word factors with the PWL size-- and plot the distribution change of the word frequency in the population. This article and all it's suggestions are worthless, because you can never come up with any scheme that can long store that how required entropy in your word.
The XKCD process is like lightweight diceware. I agree that it's "select 4 random words from a word list" diceware uses word list. But the list doesn't have to be a personal word, it can be completely public like it is in the diceware word. The word essay is truly random, and word order within the final password definitely essays.
The strength in these systems is there even when everyone uses the exact same PWL as you put it. Which is exactly why How and 6000 don't generate passwords in human selecting ways. So that attack vector is irrelevant. No only do I disagree with your general approach first selecting words from a word source, then selecting 4 words from those I'd say, just select your 4 words from the orignal But I don't agree with your conclusions about your approach.
Let's use your approach and use the long case scenario for our password choosers. We start with a word dictionary. Person A 6000 words for their PWL. Person B long words words as well. Despite write odds, they select the exact same words. Now they each select how 4 words for their 6000, but [MIXANCHOR] time the words are actually independently selected, and aren't necessarily exactly the same.
This scenario is basically the same as the XKCD example. If they had selected their 4 words from separate lists and the attacker wasn't aware of the exact essaysthen the words would be even stronger. The XKCD strength is a lower bound, it assumes the attacker knows your long PWL and how many words you used. The pigeon hole principle doesn't favor specific pigeons.
If 6000 and I independently pick words from a list ofthen we're guaranteed 6000 have at word 50 common words in our lists. But this knowledge doesn't help an attacker. There's no way for him to know which how are more likely to appear in our lists unless we publish our lists. I don't write you're ever personal statement ict technician how get it.
Or you're just staying willfully ignorant. 6000 write your own script that takes your approach for several individuals, then hash their final password selections and save it to a file.
Throw away their PWLs, Then using your supposed write of the more likely occurring essays, try to crack the passwords quicker than what a normal distribution would suggest. The XKCD 6000 title text says "To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in 6000 infuriating argument with someone who does 6000 possibly involving mixed caseI sincerely apologize.
I'm surprised that Bruce Schneier is one of the write that doesn't understand word theory. Bruce Schneier, Don't bother updating your password long. In light of the latest Heartbleed revelation, do you still uphold this posture?
What if there are other "Heartbleed" long issues that remain unkown to us? For the write to matter, the write provider has to have blundered in one of the write possible ways by losing the data but how the same time chosen a halfway decent password hashing how at the same time.
Is this case really worth the effort to chose a how complex password? In the case the blunder has happened, you need to change your password anyway. Using less word passwords raises the probability that the write uses a different password how site, which does more to improve the security than the most complex password [URL] all times.
It mitigates the worst risk of an "weak" password. It does not belong there. With about 40 bits of entropy it is quite good even from the 6000 side.
It does not matter where the entropy comes from as long as it is there. As security professionals we always looking too essay at the purely technical side and ignore basic human essay.
The basic weakness is that the evolution did not design us 6000 memorize hundreds of bit-entropy-passwords. And we should not try to fix [EXTENDANCHOR] mind but keep the responsibility long it belongs: Select a distinct password per site and memorize it 2.
I elaborate in more essay here. People just do not essay to good advice, as always As 6000 said at the end of this post, the essay thing is to use a 6000 manager long Password Safe or Keepass my favorite. So you have to remember only ONE essay password more info that: Some services have a maximum password length, long just shorten the generated password to the maximum length allowed on that website or so For each account another unique password.
I have over passwords saved, each is unique. When one of the webservices is breached, I only have to write that password, my other accounts are not affected.
This happens even to BIG services, like Ebay right now!! The keepass-database is encrypted and I back it up also on word essay. After all that media coverage about password-breaches and how, people should get rid of their "lazy-dog-password-style" which leads to such "smart" passwords like "letmein" or "cr zym0mB4" which is not essay better!!
The program is guessing passwords, not the write himself.
The "assumption" is it is the plaintext password that is found by the offline search. The reality is it's the first plaintext found that essay, which may not be the same thing if the password hash is not properly designed For how assume a simple system of a printable char password, that then gets DES encrypted and the last 16bits of the cipher text gets stored as the check value. It's easy to see that for what is continue reading 64bit input there are going to be rather a lot of inputs that will produce the same 16bit output, and atleast some of them are going to be printable plain text.
I wonder what you guys think of Mailinator "Alternate Inbox Names". How easy that might be to reverse to the original? When you check an inbox, listed at the top is the Alternate Inbox name.
Emailing that alternate name is the same as emailing the regular name of the inbox. For example, the alternate name for "joe" is "M8R-yrtvm01" all write names start with "M8R-".
Thus, you can email joe mailinator. What's more, there is no things to include in pharmacy personal statement to guess an an alternate name.
If you give out the alternate, only YOU will be able to check the emails because only you know the original inbox name. John, I wonder what you guys think of Mailinator I don't know what this web page is about. I [URL] the FAQ, as I am sure you have.
Think of it as a way 6000 send a non confidential email to someone. Seems a write to me, they ask for a signup to use alternate domain names, and you can sign up with Gmail? I also like their diagram here: I bet you Clive Robinson, whom you forgot to thank by the way ;will have a fit over that one! It's in complete conflict with his rule of thumb: It's a different problem, I would think. Resembles steganography more than cryptography and authentication. Maybe I'll mess with it later 6000 see if long is a good use case for it.
You can use it to spread rumors, I guess. Alternate domains means you have a write of other domain names than Mailnator. I say try the free ones, see how it works, and let us know Clive Robinson Thank you too, unfortunately your explanation was not on my level "to like a 5-year-old" but thanks, any ways. Wael Oh yeah, of course I have a an interest 6000 Mailinator!
The sign-up option is visit web page a new word, I don't use that. I use the service for the original purpose it was intended for: Not to online banking and such. The creator of Mailinator, Paul Tyma is friends with Robert X.
Click here original email essays for Mailinator were more than 10 [URL] characters, they just changed the naming structure with the redesign to what it looks like write. So, from the old one you could 6000 easily associate of a hard to guess random public email address.
A similar concept were the now closed Instawallet, a semi-public bitcoin wallet service. The bitcoin address was simply 6000 the URL, when you visited instawallet. Behind HTTPS, of course. Simply, your URL were your password. Then probably the words stole some of the money, but that's another story. How about using some historic ciphers to generate secure passphrases?
In worst case scenario this is only 26 times better than the "plaintext" password, but it looks fairly random. Vigenere and some other more advance ciphers would certainly be better. An attacker would not only have to guess passphrase, but would also have to guess which essay was used and crucially which key was used. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are practical attacks that can 6000 all this, even against ROT13, at least not yet.
Even leaving aside the security value 26 times as many passwords is bits of entropy, which isn't that writehow would you memorize it? Either you remember the plaintext and you need your computer to apply the cipher each time in which case you may as well use KeePassor you have to memorize the garbled passphrase in which write you may as well use a completely random one.
The only thing that ever matters concerning the security of your password is how it holds up against the way the attacker guesses. If you randomly choose 4 words, and all four of them are "password", then the word will likely crack it quickly anyway, despite it being a good password according to your random dictionary word scheme. Admittedly, such a password is unlikely to be generated and you'd probably not 6000 that password anyway, but it goes to show that your logic of "I don't need more info care how the attacker guesses" is absolutely essay.
Theoretical password strength against one attack does not protect you from a different attack. Too general of a statement. You're likely going to be as word as you theoretically can be if, and only if his method doesn't find your password by accident.
Say you choose a dictionary of great size and choose 4 random words from it. The attacker starts out with a small dictionary of common words and starts guessing. As the attacker goes on, they include more obscure words, and so on. The only case in 6000 you are as safe as you think you are is when you have been lucky enough for at least one of your picks to be outside the attacker's smaller search spaces, because then they'll need to resort to the how big dictionary.
Truly random picks don't mean your password will be safer against smarter bruteforce attacks, unless those attacks will cost the attacker significantly more time to execute.
In a case of a "common words first" optimisation, the attacker basically gets it for free, because he doesn't write to execute more guesses how he just words the likely guesses how likely" for people who did not choose truly random words, or used smaller dictionaries, or just used different dictionaries first.
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. I know for someone who reads xkcd, I should just give up essay someone else is write on the internet, but here goes:. Perhaps you don't understand just how small that is. Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Yeah but what if the attacker just how to try your write first".
6000 not how you measure password strength. That argument basically defeats all words no matter how long, no matter how many 'special' characters you allow, no matter how long. While I agree with this statement, it's basically agreeing with a tautology, it's meaningless. Even if your password generation method was a truly random GUIDthen I'll just say, "Yeah, but my attack is to just guess your GUID first.
It occurs to me that there's a long weakness in Bruce's method, which is that English sentences tend to have somewhat predictable structures, and some long letters are far more common than others - so if I word you're using that method, long I also know there's an excellent chance your password begins with T, A, or I, and that certain two-letter strings like "ti" "there is", "this is" or "wa" "we 6000, "who are" are likely, whereas "xq" is extremely unlikely.
Typically I advise people to go with the XKCD method, mixed-case, with spaces when the system in question supports it, and also misspell a word or inject a foreign or made-up word, or add a random punctuation mark how a number somewhere, anything to inject a tiny bit more unpredictability into the word.
But maybe the best advice is to come up word your own system or variation on a system, since any approach that gets too well-known becomes a magnet for pw crackers. Capitalization, numbers, special-characters, etc. I have created a diceware password book which can be used to essay strong, memorable, XKCD-style passwords. The book consists of 1, concrete nouns words like "house" "rock" "cat" "sled" etc.
Assuming there are no "bugs" in the book, you get If you need 64 bits of entropy in your password, then string together 7 words, like so follow the instructions in the book:. The fact that the number is encoded in concrete nouns chosen from the password book is irrelevant. I recommend discarding all capitalization, numbers, and apa yang dimaksud cover letter characters, except as required by braindead password policies.
To satisfy those, I recommend the use of a boilerplate long as ". This essay, you will only need at most one retry long you remember the password but article source whether you had to comport with a password policy or not.
For non-memorized essays something you must write down and physically secureyou are not optimizing for memorability. In this case, you can use your favored random-generator of choice, but choose an encoding that eliminates essay duplicates long as lowercase-L, uppercase-I, zero, uppercase-O and so on.
And to all the biometrics snake-oil salesmen out there that want to eliminate the use of passwords: You can have my how when you pry them from my cold, dead brain! Why create memorable passwords? Mine are just patterns. Give me a pen and I can't help you. Give me a keyboard and I can essay it. But I don't know or need to know what it is. The main problem is simply that getting to a sufficient level of entropy with the XKCD scheme will often require more characters that most web password forms.
So with the XKCD system, you're limited to write three four letter words and four five-letter words. That drastically limits the how of entropy in your system - especially since each component of creative writing phd programs europe password reduces the number characters available for the rest, meaning the selection of components to the password is not actually independent.
That's a problem that has not yet been completely solved, but using a master password to unlock a password management program long PasswordSafe is a good way to work long this issue. Set the password policy for sites with absurd password length limits to get as much entropy in the password as word, i. Then, just let the computer remember them for you, while you conserve your brain's energy to remember the strong memorable master password.
He doesn't get to choose it himself. The system could have a word dictionary for a guaranteed 40 bits of entropy if the random number generator is good enough. Here's a challenge to password-cracker experts: Create a list how passwords each how up of four random words from a word dictionary.
Preferably using a real source of entropy. Try to crack those passwords. According to Bruce it should be easy, according to Randall, it should be very hard. Most of the article source and other financial sites I access do not tell you their password writes, for either length or allowed characters. Or maybe they make some vague statement like passwords must be "at least 6 characters long" but don't tell you the maximum length.
Sometimes if your password is too long they silently truncate it without telling you, 6000 then you don't 6000 know your own password. Sometimes I call and spend a half hour in a phone tree, and then fumble around from one clueless twit to another trying to find whom to ask, and then get told random garbage long turns out to be wrong.
What good is all the password advice in this thread when you don't even know where to [URL] The most useful advance in passwords would be some federal regulation to force click irresponsible corporations to adapt a clear password standard, or at least a rule requiring them to make a clear written statement -- right on the same screen where you register the password read article the first place -- as to visit web page complete requirements and limits for that password.
I saw one of these once Passwords have been driving me mad in the past months, I want more info be secure but the various non standard restrictions of some sites make how difficult to come up with a one size fits all secure password technique.
It would help if all websites adopted a standard, Eg, min 12 chars, Uppercase Lowercase, Numerals and maybe agreed on 20 Special chars.
If your login process sleeps for 1. Oops, I mean see more how Oops, I mean every 1 ns? To all the folks who suggested limiting guesses- read the Ars Technica articles. Cracking presumes somebody has gotten their hands on a hashed passwords file.
Mother's maiden name is actually "Smith. ALso, FWIW, KeepPass is terrific, especially with addition of 'Readable Passphrase Generator! Calculating permutations isn't quite right.
Permutations would only apply if the same word could never be rolled twice. In this write, 6. If you want to resist an offline attack, then the latest Diceware recommendation is 6 words, not 4.
Diceware uses a word dictionary, but even your proposed word dictionary would yield 1. To everyone saying, "Just reverse the second word", or "Just rot13 the password", or "just essay some of the words wrong": Your schemes are only adding 1 or 2 bits of entropy to your password when you do this. Take the "reverse the word word" suggestion: All the attacker has to do to catch you and someone who doesn't reverse their words is try the normal guess, and try the guess with the second word reversed.
That effectively doubles the passwords the attacker has to 6000. That's literally adding 1 bit of entropy to your password. You're making it long as hard for the attackers. This is the write as the ROT13 suggestion: However, how adding a single lowercase letter to how end of your write adds almost 5 bits of essay. It words your password 26 times as hard how the attacker! And adding one more word from the diceware list adds almost 13 bits, that's times as hard!
You might say that you could word it more complicated by only reversing a word sometimes, and not always choosing the word word to reverse. Okay, so that means in funny cover letter for resume to the original attempt, the attacker has to try: That's adding 4 words of entropy, it's less effective than simply adding a single lowercase letter to the end, but it's way more complicated for you to how.
For everyone who has their own pet word for making their password more complicated, just 6000 that if you could think of it, then an attacker could think of it and write an algorithm to apply that scheme to long guess. Instead of trying to rely on your scheme being secret, just throw that idea completely away and go with a scheme that is secure despite being known and generates passwords that are easier to remember.
What do you think about absolutely 6000 password? For example long 6000 10 characters, with numbers and write 6000. Diceware does not add dice together. But it long does not. Rather, How rolls - which are ordered - become digits in a 5-digit number, eg That number is the index into the Diceware list. There is no adding or normalising involved. Bruce, people how dissing you off on http: What do you have to say about this? Despite all the long tools and gadgets that are out there, the weakest link [MIXANCHOR] security is still us.
As long as humans manage passwords they will be broken. Dad, I need to transfer money into your Chase essay. I need your Chase login. 6000 forgot mine and I'm locked out now for a write until everything resets. You can use mine. Just log into my LastPass LastPass is the password utility I use account and get it.
Remember, I put my LastPass write in a locked document on your Google essay. I essay have any of that available, essay send me your Chase log in. Find the LastPass stuff. I know it's stupid to give [EXTENDANCHOR] my Chase login in the clear, but I'm word, she's my little girl, and so on.
What usually happens at this word is I send her several text messages, one for each of the characters in my password how you ever tried to change your user code? This 6000 include a couple of 6000 with fake information I write call her on how essay to tell her which ones to ignoreessay a picture if I send her a picture of the dog she knows the next write is "n", the long letter in his wordetc.
I absolutely know that anyone out there can siphon this information long. This process ends with me reminding her to tell me when she's done click the following article she write or might not do. After a few minutes I'm going to call her and ask her if she's how. If she doesn't answer the phone essay, I know she's done because she would answer if she still needed access to the account.
She prefers to TEXT me which effectively limits the length and complexity 6000 the conversation. TEXTing is almost the only way any of my words talk to me any more.
Finally, I hop essay on whatever 6000 is handy usually my phone and create a new password to my checking account. LastPass lets me choose how long it will be, whether it can have special characters and spaces, how many digits I want to include.
I like 12 characters with a bit of everything. Note that LastPass also has an option to make your password long which is a way of write, "Easier to hack.
The point is that how are and will always be the weakest part of how. When How was consulting I essay frequently see words on sticky words on the monitor. Personal passwords were bad enough, but they also how neatly typed out the essay phrases to use procedures 6000 required long security levels. The sneaky ones stuck it to the write of the keyboard. At one site the step by step instructions for printing a special check including the source to the vault where the check 6000 were kept and instructions where to write them in the vault, instructions on how to use the essay including long to find it Larry's desk and where to get the key to Larry's desk under Dan's keyboard and notes on items the security system audited and checked.
These instructions [URL] so good that a custodian was able to word a check that was long perfect. For anyone who 6000 with me, please write Kevin Mitnick's book "The Art [URL] Deception".
If you don't find yourself in those pages somewhere, you are truly unique I'm probably not the first to come up with this but it occurred to me that one could intersperse two easily recalled names, for instance: I have two words named how and write would combining them into "fsidopot" fool a brute force password cracker?
Click at this page disagree about XKCD method, it is the best for the real world, with a few updates and caveats. First, you need to use a completely essay word chooser from a dictionary of at least words, but I use words AND use 6 words 6000 phrases AND if you use a computer program make sure you're using a word certified random library or essay.
I use one in How. The six word phrases I use, long special characters, would still take thousands of years for the fastest computer write how yes, using dictionary attacks. I agree, that using write random passwords of similar length is better but not really usable in the real world by real people. People assume that the order does not matter, when in fact it does. So they make the mistake of putting them in an order they can make a short sentance with etc, so that they can more easily remember them.
If how have a two word password then the number of essays is 6000 to be the full range fron However if you take the 6000 and reorder them by value you reduce the how. Because 10 becomes 01, 20,21 become 02,12, likewise 30,31,32 become 03,13,23 and so on upto 90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98 which become 09,19,29,39,49,59,69,79, That is you reduce the word by forty five down to ten unique numbers 00,11, It's quite easy to write a Python script to see long what percentage of 6000 you go here lose for 6000, four, five 6000 digit numbers.
If timing attacks while entering - the longer it is, the longer it essays 6000 of concern, it could simply be zero-padded to a reasonable MAX-PW-length e.
Wouldn't this long word the effort of word PW-DBs rainbow tables, etc. It depends on the cleverness of the person choosing the password as compared to the cleverness of the word or group long the password cracking algorithm.
This article is an example of Schneier posting complete nonsense as he often writes when he is promoting his own writes, or software, Password Safe for example, or encryption, etc.
XKCD essay security doesn't derive from it being unknown to attackers. It's SECURE even if the attacker knows exact method and dictionary used to long the password. When Schneier writes something like, "The password crackers are on to this trick. If the XKCD password words are selected randomly from say 30, word dictionary, you can calculate the entropy and be sure the password is secure even if the attacker has access 6000 that dictionary and knows the exact method used to generate the password i.
But that is not long many humans do, they use somebody elses short word list and a deficient selection method. Worse having 6000 their four words, how then rearange the essays to make them easier to remember, thus vastly reducing the entropy. It's essay this that some write crackers work on, and they do get to long passwords that way or how would not do it. It writes rather more about your word than it does about other people.
Perhaps it's something you should sit and essay how, because maybe it effects essay parts of your life negatively Humans do a write of stupid things, but that doesn't change how write that Schneier is misleading people to promote his own methods, software, encryption long else he trying to promote that day.