Another Windows flaw for the shills to try to explain away...

  • Thread starter Thread starter djs
  • Start date Start date
Who cares? Passwords on any system are easy enough to crack for someone
determined to do so.

Testy
 
x-no-archive: yes

Huh? They wouldn't be "bundling" anything by using a decent password
hash. Nice try, though.
 
On the contrary and to quote from the article

Users can protect themselves against the attack by adding
nonalphanumeric characters to a password. The inclusion of
symbols other than alphanumeric characters adds complexity to the process of
breaking passwords--and that means the code cracker needs
more time or more memory or both.



NOTICE 'users can protect themselves"



I stand by my original statement "Who Cares?"



Now just go away.

Testy
 
x-no-archive: yes

To quote Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram:

"MS Windows passwords can be cracked in an average of 13.6 seconds.
Assuming your password consists of just letters and numbers, that is.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ALMOST EVERYONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY."

And, to extend your quote on the article,

"[The security researcher] has created a new version of his program
using 20GB of lookup tables that can break passwords made of numbers,
letters and 16 OTHER CHARACTERS in an average of 30 SECONDS for large
batches of passwords."

So, sorry to shoot your objection down so easily, but the point you
hoped to make falls short. Even using non-alphanumeric characters isn't
sufficient.

Oh no--another Microsoft failure that quixotic ramblings fall short on
defending. See, the product needs to be solid in the REAL WORLD, not
"the user can patch/work around/wave a magic wand" world.

Yeah, you WISH I'd go away, since it's a full-time job defending the
indefensible.
 
To quote Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram:

"MS Windows passwords can be cracked in an average of 13.6 seconds.
Assuming your password consists of just letters and numbers, that is.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ALMOST EVERYONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY."

And, to extend your quote on the article,

"[The security researcher] has created a new version of his program
using 20GB of lookup tables that can break passwords made of numbers,
letters and 16 OTHER CHARACTERS in an average of 30 SECONDS for large
batches of passwords."

So, sorry to shoot your objection down so easily, but the point you
hoped to make falls short. Even using non-alphanumeric characters isn't
sufficient. The article just says their use makes it harder to break
the
passwords (as if 20 GB and 30 seconds is a lot).

Oh no--another Microsoft failure that quixotic ramblings fall short on
defending. See, the product needs to be solid in the REAL WORLD, not
"the user can patch/work around/wave a magic wand" world.

Yeah, you WISH I'd go away, since it's a full-time job defending the
indefensible.
 
Since you seem to lack basic reading skills I will TELL you again my point

****Passwords on any system are easy enough to crack for someone determined
to do so.***

Is that is too hard for you to understand????

Testy

djs said:
x-no-archive: yes

To quote Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram:

"MS Windows passwords can be cracked in an average of 13.6 seconds.
Assuming your password consists of just letters and numbers, that is.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ALMOST EVERYONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY."

And, to extend your quote on the article,

"[The security researcher] has created a new version of his program
using 20GB of lookup tables that can break passwords made of numbers,
letters and 16 OTHER CHARACTERS in an average of 30 SECONDS for large
batches of passwords."

So, sorry to shoot your objection down so easily, but the point you
hoped to make falls short. Even using non-alphanumeric characters isn't
sufficient.

Oh no--another Microsoft failure that quixotic ramblings fall short on
defending. See, the product needs to be solid in the REAL WORLD, not
"the user can patch/work around/wave a magic wand" world.

Yeah, you WISH I'd go away, since it's a full-time job defending the
indefensible.

Testy said:
On the contrary and to quote from the article

Users can protect themselves against the attack by
adding nonalphanumeric characters to a password. The inclusion of
symbols other than alphanumeric characters adds complexity to the
process of breaking passwords--and that means the
code cracker needs more time or more memory or both.

NOTICE 'users can protect themselves"

I stand by my original statement "Who Cares?"

Now just go away.

Testy
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Inherent weaknesses are NEVER the users' fault.

NEGLECTING to keep systems updated (and thus protected) AS ADVISED, however,
IS.

What part of that distinction is so difficult to comprehend?

Randall Arnold
 
Please explain how password cracking is a Microsoft failure per se.

Just how much do you know about cryptography, anyway? Sounds like evry
little, or else you'd be aware of the never-ending escalation involved in
protection/cracking. It's become a race of sorts, and PCs are just getting
too powerful for short encrypted strings. You'll be hard-pressed to get
USERS to implement longer, complex, better-protected password strings.

So, to sum up:

1) ANYTHING can be cracked given sufficient time, effort and resources
2) Microsoft is not at fault for this ubiquitous reality
3) USERS (self included) *rarely* implement sufficient protection

Care to argue further? You should be aware that thus far your logic has
proven very poor.

Randall Arnold

djs said:
x-no-archive: yes

To quote Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram:

"MS Windows passwords can be cracked in an average of 13.6 seconds.
Assuming your password consists of just letters and numbers, that is.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ALMOST EVERYONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY."

And, to extend your quote on the article,

"[The security researcher] has created a new version of his program
using 20GB of lookup tables that can break passwords made of numbers,
letters and 16 OTHER CHARACTERS in an average of 30 SECONDS for large
batches of passwords."

So, sorry to shoot your objection down so easily, but the point you
hoped to make falls short. Even using non-alphanumeric characters isn't
sufficient.

Oh no--another Microsoft failure that quixotic ramblings fall short on
defending. See, the product needs to be solid in the REAL WORLD, not
"the user can patch/work around/wave a magic wand" world.

Yeah, you WISH I'd go away, since it's a full-time job defending the
indefensible.

Testy said:
On the contrary and to quote from the article

Users can protect themselves against the attack by
adding nonalphanumeric characters to a password. The inclusion of
symbols other than alphanumeric characters adds complexity to the
process of breaking passwords--and that means the
code cracker needs more time or more memory or both.

NOTICE 'users can protect themselves"

I stand by my original statement "Who Cares?"

Now just go away.

Testy
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'd say apparently so.

Randall Arnold

Testy said:
Since you seem to lack basic reading skills I will TELL you again my point

****Passwords on any system are easy enough to crack for someone determined
to do so.***

Is that is too hard for you to understand????

Testy

djs said:
x-no-archive: yes

To quote Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram:

"MS Windows passwords can be cracked in an average of 13.6 seconds.
Assuming your password consists of just letters and numbers, that is.
BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ALMOST EVERYONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY."

And, to extend your quote on the article,

"[The security researcher] has created a new version of his program
using 20GB of lookup tables that can break passwords made of numbers,
letters and 16 OTHER CHARACTERS in an average of 30 SECONDS for large
batches of passwords."

So, sorry to shoot your objection down so easily, but the point you
hoped to make falls short. Even using non-alphanumeric characters isn't
sufficient.

Oh no--another Microsoft failure that quixotic ramblings fall short on
defending. See, the product needs to be solid in the REAL WORLD, not
"the user can patch/work around/wave a magic wand" world.

Yeah, you WISH I'd go away, since it's a full-time job defending the
indefensible.

Testy said:
On the contrary and to quote from the article

Users can protect themselves against the attack by
adding nonalphanumeric characters to a password. The inclusion of
symbols other than alphanumeric characters adds complexity to the
process of breaking passwords--and that means the
code cracker needs more time or more memory or both.

NOTICE 'users can protect themselves"

I stand by my original statement "Who Cares?"

Now just go away.

Testy



Who cares? Passwords on any system are easy enough to crack for
someone determined to do so.

Testy

Cracking Windows passwords in seconds:
http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5053063.html

I know, this Windows weakness is the users' fault, too, right?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Randall said:
Key phrase: AUTO update. ; )
Click to expand...

Key phrase: AUTO trash system LOL!
Randall Arnold
(ps: I think a "patch a week" is an exaggeration-- at least for
security issues)
Click to expand...

Security Patches Released in July for Windows
July 23, 2003
a.. MS03-030: Security Update for Microsoft DirectX®
July 16, 2003
a.. MS03-027: Security Update for Microsoft Windows®
b.. MS03-026: Security Update for Microsoft Windows
July 9, 2003
a.. MS03-025: Security Update for Microsoft Windows
b.. MS03-024: Security Update for Microsoft Windows
c.. MS03-023: Security Update for Microsoft Windows

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Back
Top