this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
88 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37727 readers
625 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Murkhat@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Is it really safer? I mean when trying to bruteforce a password, one would have to make a guess whether it's a passphrase or not. But if you decided to check for pass phrases, wouldn't the one you posted be cracked in 5 times the amount of words in that dictionary? I'm not sure how large the vocabularies of the generators are, but I would guess a random 17 char password might be safer than a 5 phrases password?

[–] Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

but I would guess a random 17 char password might be safer than a 5 phrases password

And you would be very wrong about that. A 5 phrase password has entropy. "finance-caffeine-utopia-redress-unseen" is 28 characters. If you add in a different symbol between the words and add a number somewhere, this password becomes incredibly difficult to brute force.

I'll let xkcd explain it better.

[–] Murkhat@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago

Youre right,different separators, numbers and even capital letters change my theory alot

[–] Areldyb@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

It'd be dictionary length to the fifth power, not times five.