Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: for-q-clinton
How is that. Can you read it now?

Sure, how about this:

Even a relatively long, hard password exceeding most guidelines for password security is breakable in Windows, yet secure in *NIX.

Nobody suggested password lengths go down when *NIX moved from Crypt() with a two-character salt to MD5 with an eight-character salt. The password requirements remained the same so security could go up.

The idea of being able to use a shorter password with *NIX never even occured to me. Only a Microsoftie would see something like this and think "Gee, now I can use a shorter password." instead of "Wow, my current password length now gives me better security."

I have to admit, the security mindset of many of its users is one of the problems Windows endures.

572 posted on 09/01/2005 10:55:17 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
"Gee, now I can use a shorter password." instead of "Wow, my current password length now gives me better security."

I think I'll have to end this discussion (if you can call it that). Your statement is stupid and either purposely ignores my previous posts or you're really not able to converse on the same level.

Passwords have increased in length overtime. Salting allows you to keep the same password requirements but making it harder to crack the password (not impossible, but harder) without requiring the user to change his password. I typed it earlier and explained this in detail several times. If you're too obtuse to understand that, we can't continue this dialogue.

587 posted on 09/01/2005 12:30:26 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson