 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:21:48 +0200, scott wrote:
>
>>>> Especially when some stupid system forces you to change it every
>>>> month.
>>> ...and this is bad because...?
>> You try coming up with a different strong password every month, *and*
>> remembering it without writing it down. I doubt I'm the only user of
>> this system who needs to write the password somewhere. I wonder if
>> security would actually be improved by removing the 1 month expiry.
>
> There have been studies done that suggest that changes that are too
> frequent reduce security for just this reason.
>
Do you have a pointer?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Plus it's trivially easy to crack. Even long passwords hash down to 8
> characters or something. There are plenty of free programs that'll crack
> a zip archive in a matter of minutes or hours just with brute force.
>
Some zippers (IIRC Winzip 9+, at least) support AES nowadays. Shouldn't
be as easy to crack as older ZIP-archives.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>
> We were talking about a population, unless you can come up with a very
> good reason why certain extreme intelligences are more likely than
> others you may assume the distribution is gaussian
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem).
Yes. But I can't say for sure (=mention as a fact) that the average line
goes exactly at 50% on population.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Plus it's trivially easy to crack. Even long passwords hash down to 8
>> characters or something. There are plenty of free programs that'll
>> crack a zip archive in a matter of minutes or hours just with brute
>> force.
>>
>
> Some zippers (IIRC Winzip 9+, at least) support AES nowadays. Shouldn't
> be as easy to crack as older ZIP-archives.
Depends. If the key algorithm is still as weak, the cipher makes no
difference.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> (getting some girls to stand on scales was an interesting exercise).
;-)
> Often the distribution of their heights was camel shaped.
Programming assignment grades follow a similar bimodal distribution.
Apparently some people "get" it, and others just don't.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> (getting some girls to stand on scales was an interesting exercise).
>
> ;-)
>
>> Often the distribution of their heights was camel shaped.
>
> Programming assignment grades follow a similar bimodal distribution.
> Apparently some people "get" it, and others just don't.
>
Yes, some students get height and others don't.
No that is not the reason of course. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>
>> We were talking about a population, unless you can come up with a very
>> good reason why certain extreme intelligences are more likely than
>> others you may assume the distribution is gaussian
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem).
>
> Yes. But I can't say for sure (=mention as a fact) that the average line
> goes exactly at 50% on population.
>
If the central limit theorem applies (which quite possibly doesn't) than
the average is far within 0.5 percent of the median for a population
size like that of the UK. so 50% could be a rounded figure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Depends. If the key algorithm is still as weak, the cipher makes no
> difference.
>
Yes. But AFAIK the key algorithm on AES-encrypted ZIPs is improved. At
least what I've heard it's a PITA to crack open (haven't tried myself -
never had any need).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:43:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> You can't even buy a hard drive that won't hold five Commodore Pet
>> computers worth of memory for every *bit* of memory a Commodore Pet
>> could address.
>
> I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?
> There were so many models, but the address space was the same on all of
> them IIRC.
They were all limited to what the 6502 processor could handle, which was
as has been said by others here. Early Pets had only 8K of RAM
installed, but some machines were bulked out to 32K. To think that
those things retailed for $1k in 1979 dollars...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Apparently some people "get" it, and others just don't.
Evidence suggests that if you can consistently apply nonsensical rules,
you "get it". If you insist on making things make sense, it seriously
interferes with learning to program.
Researchers gave people a series of things like
A = 1
B = 2
C = A + B
A = C + B
B = B + 2
D = A + C
and then asked for the values of everything after. Then they taught
introductory computer classes. It didn't matter if people got the rules
right (like if they used A=1 everywhere and B=2 everywhere, or whether
they updated the variables in the order you'd expect if they're
assignments), those people did better. Those who didn't follow any rules
(like always using A=1 but updating B later) did more poorly in a
statistically significant way.
It was an interesting paper.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
