h a l f b a k e r yYou want a piece of this?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Good, boring, idea. an eyebrow lift to you |
|
| |
What [evilpenguin521] said. |
|
| |
//What [evilpenguin521] said.// |
|
| |
Good, boring, anno. With which I concur. [+] |
|
| |
Neat.
(wrong adjective, try again. You have two attempts left)
Neat.
(wrong adjective, try again. You have one attempt left.)
Peachy.
(Adjective attempt failed. Your modifying privileges are revoked for 24 hours.) |
|
| |
I'm torn. The uber-geek in me wants to say "hey, you know learn your friggin' password and this won't be a problem." The patient, hand-holding help desk guy in me says "an extra couple of attempts at getting the password right before a full abort might be nice for a lot of people." I'm feeling fairly chipper today so I'm going with that side of my personality. [+] |
|
| |
I always wanted a feature that said " That's not your password. By the way, did you know your capslock is on? " |
|
| |
I'd rather see what I typed in while I was typing it in, since ******* doesn't give me any information other than the number of characters. Failing that, I'd like failed passwords to be displayed as typed so I can see exactly what I entered. |
|
| |
Actually, instead of displaying "******",
why can't password interfaces display a
hash of your password - so, you type in
"treacle51", and the interface displays
"%9Pi~cgR3". If you see this come up
every
time
you'll know when you've got your
password
right. As with all good hash functions,
this will have the features that (1) a
slight change to the input produces a
radically (and unpredictably) different
output, and (2) there's no (easy) way of
working out the input from the output. |
|
| |
[hippo], that is a relatively simple cryptologic system to break... and as such wouldn't be very secure. no matter how many intermediate alphabets you cycle your plaintext through, if it always comes up with the same ciphertext, it's just a simple substitution cipher - i.e., a=q, b=$, c=^, d=? . |
|
| |
even if you go through thirty alphabets to get to those texts, (i.e., a= ~ = # = > = q) a will always = q, and the intermediate alphabets can be thrown out. |
|
| |
if each character of plaintext can have multiple characters of ciphertext (i.e., a = Rt$%^) then it would be MORE secure, but still just a substitution... so still somewhat simple to crack, compared to the "*******" . |
|
| |
Unless, of course, your password is in fact ******* |
|
| |
/I always wanted a feature that said " That's not your password. By the way, did you know your capslock is on? "/ |
|
| |
Modern operating systems have what is effectively this. |
|
| |
XP tells you your capslock is on... at least, Pro does it. |
|
| |
[Cap'n] XP Pro certainly does, yes. I've got that at work (not here at home though). |
|
| |
don't you write your passwords down? Duh! |
|
| |
[CaptainClapper] No, a hash of a number
or a password is not a substitution cipher,
and *would* be hard to break. Look at the
link I've added on "SHA" hash algorithms. |
|
| |
you know this is so boring compared to see - suspenders... |
|
| |
[hippo], indeed -- I didn't see the link :) |
|
| |
<somewhat off topic> have you seen the Kryptos statue @ CIA? I'm very interested in that 4th section... </sot> |
|
| |