LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:19:42 +0800, Sylvia Else wrote:
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
My guess is, the password checker demands non-alphanumeric characters in there as well.
Which is a dumb thing to require.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in news:v3ols0$qb6k$1@dont- email.me:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:19:42 +0800, Sylvia Else wrote:
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
My guess is, the password checker demands non-alphanumeric characters in
there as well.
Which is a dumb thing to require.
Agreed. Silly rules that don't help protect you.
Looks like a good password except that you posted it. Mine is 24 characters long and not random if you know the pattern that made it. My wife hasn't been able to type it in even if it is written down for her to type in.
A pharmacy site rejected a proposed long password because it contained three characters in my email address. I just call them when something is needed. I'd rather talk to a human anyway.
FWIW, I've yet to be hacked. I've only been online since before the Internet.
I'm also glad to see you both still enjoying life.
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, David LaRue wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in news:v3ols0$qb6k$1@dont-
email.me:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:19:42 +0800, Sylvia Else wrote:
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
My guess is, the password checker demands non-alphanumeric characters in >>> there as well.
Which is a dumb thing to require.
Agreed. Silly rules that don't help protect you.
Looks like a good password except that you posted it. Mine is 24
characters
long and not random if you know the pattern that made it. My wife hasn't >> been able to type it in even if it is written down for her to type in.
A pharmacy site rejected a proposed long password because it contained
three
characters in my email address. I just call them when something is
needed.
I'd rather talk to a human anyway.
FWIW, I've yet to be hacked. I've only been online since before the
Internet.
I'm also glad to see you both still enjoying life.
I read somewhere that someone thought that a good and well managed
password was way better than 2FA or 3FA since those, together with
modern password reset policies, leave too many gaps.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in news:v3ols0$qb6k$1@dont- email.me:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:19:42 +0800, Sylvia Else wrote:
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
My guess is, the password checker demands non-alphanumeric characters in
there as well.
Which is a dumb thing to require.
Agreed. Silly rules that don't help protect you.
Looks like a good password except that you posted it.
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
I've tried, without success, to get password resets disabled on things
like bank account online access.
Sylvia.
On 05/06/2024 12:08, Sylvia Else wrote:
I've tried, without success, to get password resets disabled on things
like bank account online access.
Sylvia.
Tried at work to get a sensible policy and I work at a big tech company
that should know better. IT monkeys are just not having it.
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 05/06/2024 12:08, Sylvia Else wrote:
I've tried, without success, to get password resets disabled on things
like bank account online access.
Sylvia.
Tried at work to get a sensible policy and I work at a big tech company
that should know better. IT monkeys are just not having it.
That is due to their CYA "checkbox security" such that their A is
covered if they follow the list of "checkboxes" and the 'silly policy'
is enshrined in the checkbox list, so they duitifully follow along in
order to CYA.
You'd need to first get the checkbox security list updated to something sensible before the IT monkeys will do anything to change.
In article <lca3qeFjp85U1@mid.individual.net>,
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
LFPUxS5a2b3LWr1qt2RS
Password not strong enough.
Ye Gods! How strong do you want it to be?
KeePassXC says that password has about 108 bits of entropy. It
characterizes the password quality as "excellent."
As noted by others, it's probably some bullshit "password complexity" requirement that you include some additional character types. I ordinarily have KeePassXC generate passwords similar to what you were trying to use,
but with look-alike characters excluded (no I, l, 1, O, 0, etc.). With a length of 20 or more characters, you're nearly always going to get a
stronger password than some site that requires you to choose from all available characters...and then imposes a password-length limit. (The only reason I can see for a length limit is that they're storing plaintext passwords in their database, which is the textbook definition of "doing it wrong.")
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 388 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:30:47 |
| Calls: | 8,220 |
| Calls today: | 18 |
| Files: | 13,122 |
| Messages: | 5,872,261 |
| Posted today: | 1 |