|
Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 10/24/07 17:02
"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:aj0th3d1v725nmmc629h9qturjqd2ijffi@4ax.com...
> .oO(Sanders Kaufman)
>>Indeed - which is why a dynamic password, rather than a static one, is so
>>much more secure.
>
> The password itself is only a little piece in the puzzle. A strong
> password is useless in a weak algorithm.
What an *empty* thing to say.
> Published and well-known algorithms like MD5 and SHA1 are under heavy
> attacks today, because vulnerabilities were found in the last couple of
> years.
Wow - that's overkill.
I just wanted to have a way to remember a different password for every site.
I wasn't trying to reverse-engineer Enigma.
>>Put a hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred typewriters for a hundred
>>days - and one of them will type your password.
>
>>But multiply that process by itself and still - NONE of them will come up
>>with a password algorithm.
>
> Why not? These monkeys are able to write Shakespeare in Chinese
> backwards if you're lucky enough.
Because an algorithm is not a string.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|