• wizzim@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    While the joke is funny, what is the context? Why did she post the original tweet in the first place?

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s lady gaga.

      If you’ve followed her at all, even indirectly, this is NOT the weirdest thing she’s done, and bluntly, the weirder stuff wasn’t justified (to the public at least).

      I’m not trying to throw shade at Gaga at all. Lady, let your freak flag fly all day long. You don’t need my permission to do it, but if you want it, you got it. Weird isn’t bad, it’s just weird.

      IMO, at this point, gaga doesn’t need a reason to be weird.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would hope so, sentences and words are some of the most secure passwords/phrases you can use

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        While this comic is good for people that do the former or have very short passwords, it often misleads from the fact that humans simply shouldn’t try to remember more than one really good password (for a password manager) and apply proper supplementary techniques like 2FA. One fully random password of enough length will do better than both of these, and it’s not even close. It will take like a week or so of typing it to properly memorize it, but once you do, everything beyond that will all be fully random too, and will be remembered by the password manager.

      • bjorney@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Words are the least secure way to generate a password of a given length because you are limiting your character set to 26, and character N gives you information about the character at position N+1

        The most secure way to generate a password is to uniformly pick bytes from the entire character set using a suitable form of entropy

        Edit: for the dozens of people still feeling the need to reply to me: RSA keys are fixed length, and you don’t need to memorize them. Using a dictionary of words to create your own RSA key is intentionally kneecapping the security of the key.

        • shrugs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          so you are saying 44 bits of entropy is not enough. the whole point of the comic is, that 4 words out of a list of 2000 is more secure then some shorter password with leetcode and a number and punctuation at the end. which feels rather intuitive given that 4 words are way easier to remember

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s only really true if you’re going to be storing the password in a secure vault after randomly generating it; otherwise, it’s terrible because 1) nobody will be able to remember it so they’ll be writing it down, and 2) it’ll be such a pain to type that people will find ways to circumvent it at every possible turn

          Pass phrases, even when taken with the idea that it’s a limited character set that follows a semi predictable flow, if you look at it in terms of the number of words possible it actually is decently secure, especially if the words used are random and not meaningful to the user. Even limiting yourself to the 1000 most common words in the English language and using 4 words, that’s one trillion possible combinations without even accounting for modifying capitalisation, adding a symbol or three, including a short number at the end…

          And even with that base set, even if a computer could theoretically try all trillion possibilities quickly, it’ll make a ton of noise, get throttled, and likely lock the account out long before it has a chance to try even the tiniest fraction of them

          Your way is theoretically more secure, but practically only works for machines or with secure password storage. If it’s something a human needs to remember and type themselves, phrases of random words is much more viable and much more likely to be used in a secure fashion.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            And even with that base set, even if a computer could theoretically try all trillion possibilities quickly, it’ll make a ton of noise, get throttled, and likely lock the account out long before it has a chance to try even the tiniest fraction of them

            One small correction - this just isn’t how the vast majority of password cracking happens. You’ll most likely get throttled before you try 5 password and banned before you get to try 50. And it’s extremely traceable what you’re trying to do. Most cracking happens after a data breach, where the cracker has unrestricted local access to (hopefully) encrypted and salted password hashes.

            People just often re-use their password or even forget to change it after a breach. That’s where these leaked passwords get their value if you can decrypt them. So really, this is a non-factor. But the rest stands.

            • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s fair

              It’s still a rather large pool to crack through even without adding more than the 1000 most common words, extra digits, minimal character substitution, capitalization tweaks, etc

          • bjorney@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago
            1. we are talking about RSA keys - you don’t memorize your RSA keys

            2. if you rely on memorizing all your passwords, I assume that means you have ample password reuse, which is a million times worse than using a different less-secure password on every site

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Derp. Forgot where I was.

              I find passphrases easy to remember and I have several. I appreciate the concern, but I understand basic password safety.

      • Fillicia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The part where this falls flat is that using dictionary words is one of the first step in finding unsecured password. Starting with a character by character brute force might land you on a secure password eventually, but going by dictionary and common string is sure to land you on an unsecured password fast.

            • Zangoose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s true but in practice it wouldn’t take 60^11 tries to break the password. Troubador is not a random string and all of the substitutions are common ( o -> 0, a ->4, etc. ). You could crack this password a lot easier with a basic dictionary + substitution brute force method.

              I’m saying this because I had an assignment that showed this in an college cybersecurity class. Part of our lesson on password strength was doing a brute force attack on passwords like the one in the top of the xkcd meme to prove they aren’t secure. Any modern laptop with an i5 or higher can probably brute force this password using something like hashcat if you left it on overnight.

              Granted, I probably wouldn’t use the xkcd one either. I’d either want another word or two or maybe a number/symbol in between each word with alternating caps or something like that. Either way it wouldn’t be much harder to remember.

              • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Troubador is not a random string

                except it is not troubador. it is troubador, ampersand, digit.

                if you know there are exactly two additional characters and you know they are at the end of the string, the first number is really slightly bigger (like 11 times)

                once the random appendix is 3 characters or more, the second number wins

                https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Divide[Power[2048%2C4]%2CPower[256%2C3]*Power[2%2C4]*4*500000]

                and moral of the story is: don’t use xkcd comic, however funny it is, as your guidance to computer security. yes, the comic suggestions are better than having the password on a post-it on your monitor, but this is 21st century ffs, use password wallet.

                • sus@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  if you know there are exactly two additional characters

                  this is pretty much irrelevant, as the amount of passwords with n+1 random characters is going to be exponentially higher than ones with n random characters. Any decent password cracker is going to try the 30x smaller set before doing the bigger set

                  and you know they are at the end of the string

                  that knowledge is worth like 2 bits at most, unless the characters are in the middle of a word which is probably even harder to remember

                  if you know there are exactly two additional characters and you know they are at the end of the string, the first number is really slightly bigger (like 11 times)

                  even if you assume the random characters are chosen from a large set, say 256 characters, you’d still get the 4-word one as over 50 times more. Far more likely is that it’s a regular human following one of those “you must have x numbers and y special characters” rules which would reduce it to something like 1234567890!?<^>@$%&±() which is going to be less than 30 characters

                  and even if they end up roughly equal in quessing difficulty, it is still far easier to remember the 4 random words

        • sus@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          this assumes a dictionary is used. Otherwise the entropy would be 117 bits or more. The only problem is some people may fail to use actually uniformly random words drawn from a large enough set of words (okay, and you should also use a password manager for the most part)

        • shrugs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          see, you didn’t get the whole comic. 4 words out of a dicitionary with 2000 words has more combinations then a single uncommon non gibberish baseword with numeral and puction at the end. as long as the attacker knows your method.

          a dicitonary attack will not lower the entropy of 44 bits, thats what the comic is trying to say

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It the length not the content for the most part. Some keys have syntax such as leading or trailing characters.

    • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s assymetric crypto. You’d need to find a matching public key. Or it’s just some useless characters. I suppose that’s impossible, or what we call that… Like take a few billion years to compute. But I’m not an expert on RSA.

      • slazer2au@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Public keys are derived from the private key. The asymmetric part is for communication not generation. Afaik

        • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I’m pretty sure the cryptographic parameters to generate a public key are included in the private key file. So while you can generate the other file from that file, it’s not only the private part in it but also some extra information and you can’t really change the characters in the private key part. Also not an expert here. I’m fairly certain that it can’t happen the other way round, or you could impersonate someone and do all kinds of MITM attacks… In this case I’ve tried it this way, changed characters and openssh-keygen complains and can’t generate anything anymore.