Comment by zx8080
6 months ago
> It is still a good decision, an one character password is useless from a security standpoint.
Only if length is known. Which is true now. So it opens the gates to try passwords of specific known length.
6 months ago
> It is still a good decision, an one character password is useless from a security standpoint.
Only if length is known. Which is true now. So it opens the gates to try passwords of specific known length.
If you are brute forcing passwords, knowing the length only reduces the number of passwords to try by like 1 hundredth.
Drats, you're right. I thought it'd be worse, but the ratio seems to only depend on the number of letters in your character set: 1/count(letters in alphabet).
For ascii at 95 printable chars you get 0.9894736842. Makes intuitive sense as the "weight" of each digit increases, taking away a digit matters less to the total combos.
Maybe I'll start using one Japanese Kanji to confuse would be hackers! They could spend hours trying to brute force it while wondering why they can't crack my one letter password they saw in my terminal prompt. ;)
I’ve occasionally contemplated using some non-ASCII character like • or š in a password, but have backed off for fear of needing access from a device that doesn’t support input of those characters.
Its funny how a single japanese symbol would be harder to crack than the anglicized name for it
5 replies →
It also give you the possibility of filtering out which ones are worth cracking and which ones not
It could also give useful priors for targeted attacks, "Their password is 5 characters, and their daughters name is also 5 characters, let's try variations of that".
2 replies →