We’ve all been there.

  • graphite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    32 is a damn strong password

    Not necessarily: only if it’s generated properly, and only for the moment - that will change in the next few years.

    You do realize that length and symbol type are only 2 out of many other factors that go into a strong password?

    • Corhen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, fair, not all 32 digit passwords will be secure.

      11111111111111111111111111111111 is not secure, but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.

      • graphite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        but I was trying to imply, in a properly generated password, 32 digits long is very secure.

        I understand, and I think you make a valid point as far as the discussion is concerned.

        It’s unfortunately still a little more complicated than that, though.

        Like I said, there’s more to a password than length and symbol type.

        Even something like cF*+@aXbIdFHje2vZiU-1 is less secure than if it were generated by a good PRNG.

        D0@ndro!dsDr@3@m0f3l3ctr!cSh33p? is also insecure, though it might have been considered secure 4-5 years ago.

        You see what I’m saying?

        Then of course there’s hash algorithms and how those are used to authenticate the passwords themselves, etc.