<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Password Restrictions are Bad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/</link>
	<description>Random musings from a jaded coder who just needs a hug.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:31:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-6789</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darrylclarke.com/?p=218#comment-6789</guid>
		<description>I found this post searching for an official reason why such seemingly arbitrary restrictions are in place.  There were some plausible responses on the evanfosmark site you link to.  I&#039;m confused thinking password protocols would be standardized; instead, they look &quot;homemade.&quot;  Okay, here are some strange rules I have to deal with:

from my university website:
8-14 chars long
&quot;some combination of&quot; letters and numbers and at least one special char (e.g., +, @, #, or $)
The following characters can NOT be used: _ `  &amp; ! 
and then it goes on with the usual caveat about dictionary words and no prior passwords, etc.

I&#039;m wondering whether I can use the /really/ special chars like ß, ☺, ½, etc?

from my financial institution:
8-15 chars long (not case sensitive), Aa-Zz, 0-9, -, _
at least one letter, one number, no spaces.

So they allow the dash and underscore, but nothing else.. seems a little pointless.  OTOH, if I accidentally enter the wrong password even once, I get an email saying so.  I don&#039;t know why more sites aren&#039;t doing this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this post searching for an official reason why such seemingly arbitrary restrictions are in place.  There were some plausible responses on the evanfosmark site you link to.  I&#8217;m confused thinking password protocols would be standardized; instead, they look &#8220;homemade.&#8221;  Okay, here are some strange rules I have to deal with:</p>
<p>from my university website:<br />
8-14 chars long<br />
&#8220;some combination of&#8221; letters and numbers and at least one special char (e.g., +, @, #, or $)<br />
The following characters can NOT be used: _ `  &amp; !<br />
and then it goes on with the usual caveat about dictionary words and no prior passwords, etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m wondering whether I can use the /really/ special chars like ß, ☺, ½, etc?</p>
<p>from my financial institution:<br />
8-15 chars long (not case sensitive), Aa-Zz, 0-9, -, _<br />
at least one letter, one number, no spaces.</p>
<p>So they allow the dash and underscore, but nothing else.. seems a little pointless.  OTOH, if I accidentally enter the wrong password even once, I get an email saying so.  I don&#8217;t know why more sites aren&#8217;t doing this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darryl Clarke</title>
		<link>http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-573</link>
		<dc:creator>Darryl Clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darrylclarke.com/?p=218#comment-573</guid>
		<description>Strange, I didn&#039;t even say they were harder to remember.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strange, I didn&#8217;t even say they were harder to remember.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guy</title>
		<link>http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-571</link>
		<dc:creator>Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darrylclarke.com/?p=218#comment-571</guid>
		<description>Requiring at least one number/symbol/whatever per password increases security.

There are 208,827,064,576 passwords 8 characters long, consisting only of lower case letters.

There are 642,544,814,080 passwords 8 characters long, consisting of 7 lower case letters and one number.

(That&#039;s 208 billion vs. 642 billion).

It is easier to brute force when you have set limits, but even in the case of any character being allowed, the overwhelming majority of passwords will still only be alphanumeric. By forcing people to use a symbol in their passwords, you are increasing the range of characters that will be in the typical person&#039;s password. So in almost all cases, it will be harder to brute force.

Just my 2 cents.

PS
I agree that they are harder to remember though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Requiring at least one number/symbol/whatever per password increases security.</p>
<p>There are 208,827,064,576 passwords 8 characters long, consisting only of lower case letters.</p>
<p>There are 642,544,814,080 passwords 8 characters long, consisting of 7 lower case letters and one number.</p>
<p>(That&#8217;s 208 billion vs. 642 billion).</p>
<p>It is easier to brute force when you have set limits, but even in the case of any character being allowed, the overwhelming majority of passwords will still only be alphanumeric. By forcing people to use a symbol in their passwords, you are increasing the range of characters that will be in the typical person&#8217;s password. So in almost all cases, it will be harder to brute force.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>PS<br />
I agree that they are harder to remember though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Margaret</title>
		<link>http://darrylclarke.com/2009/08/18/password-restrictions-are-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>Margaret</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darrylclarke.com/?p=218#comment-246</guid>
		<description>I concur!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I concur!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

