8tpercent@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoPasswordslemmy.worldimagemessage-square28fedilinkarrow-up116arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up114arrow-down1imagePasswordslemmy.world8tpercent@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square28fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaregraphite@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-21 year ago 32 is a damn strong password Not necessarily: only if it’s generated properly, and only for the moment - that will change in the next few years. You do realize that length and symbol type are only 2 out of many other factors that go into a strong password?
minus-squareCorhen@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoOk, fair, not all 32 digit passwords will be secure. 11111111111111111111111111111111 is not secure, but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.
minus-squaregraphite@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 year ago but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure. I understand, and I think you make a valid point as far as the discussion is concerned. It’s unfortunately still a little more complicated than that, though. Like I said, there’s more to a password than length and symbol type. Even something like cF*+@aXbIdFHje2vZiU-1 is less secure than if it were generated by a good PRNG. D0@ndro!dsDr@3@m0f3l3ctr!cSh33p? is also insecure, though it might have been considered secure 4-5 years ago. You see what I’m saying? Then of course there’s hash algorithms and how those are used to authenticate the passwords themselves, etc.
Not necessarily: only if it’s generated properly, and only for the moment - that will change in the next few years.
You do realize that length and symbol type are only 2 out of many other factors that go into a strong password?
Ok, fair, not all 32 digit passwords will be secure.
11111111111111111111111111111111 is not secure, but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.
I understand, and I think you make a valid point as far as the discussion is concerned.
It’s unfortunately still a little more complicated than that, though.
Like I said, there’s more to a password than length and symbol type.
Even something like cF*+@aXbIdFHje2vZiU-1 is less secure than if it were generated by a good PRNG.
D0@ndro!dsDr@3@m0f3l3ctr!cSh33p? is also insecure, though it might have been considered secure 4-5 years ago.
You see what I’m saying?
Then of course there’s hash algorithms and how those are used to authenticate the passwords themselves, etc.