Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 15 Dec 1996 12:53:42 GMT
From:      rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop)
To:        Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, proff@iq.org (Julian Assange)
Cc:        security@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: vulnerability in new pw suite
Message-ID:  <v01540b04aed9945c1391@[194.32.164.2]>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:23 pm 14/12/96, Terry Lambert wrote:
>I've noticed a similar restriction on the search space is caused by
>enforcing password length and use of particular values (digits,
>control characters, and capitalization)
>
>Once we add in "non-pronouncible" and "not in dictionary" and so on,
>I think that eventually, in the interests of "security", users will
>be forced to choose from a list of 10 or so "sufficiently safe"
>passwords.
>
>Of course, once that happens, we'll just publish the list... any
>restriction on "allowed values" is an implicit restriction of the
>search space a cracker is required to search, and makes cracking
>just that much easier.

Apologies if my irony detector is malfunctioning, but I can't let this one
go :-)

There are something over 10^14 usable 8 character passwords. Of these,
maybe 10^5 are in dictionaries, and maybe another 100 'guessables' per user
could be found easily by trawling the user's home directory and points
south. Throw in a few more (SO's name, phone number and the like) and maybe
you can get up to c. 2 x 10^5 passwords per user that are unsafe. That
still leaves comfortably over 10^14 comparatively safe 8 character
passwords.

So there isn't actually a problem, it's just that those pesky users will
insist on picking passwords from the unsafe set. They use lame excuses like
"I cant remember %bSx48&J".

Insisting on one non-alphanumeric character reduces the total search space
right enough, to between 10^13 and 10^14, but it almost certainly forces
the password out of the much smaller unsafe set. You can introduce a few
such restrictions before the total search space falls below 10^12 which is
probably good enough. At least, it's *much* better than 10^5.


--
Bob Bishop              (0118) 977 4017  international code +44 118
rb@gid.co.uk        fax (0118) 989 4254  between 0800 and 1800 UK





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v01540b04aed9945c1391>