<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Online banking security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/</link>
	<description>I'm gonna say this once and once only. Stay out of Camberwick Green!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: lambic</title>
		<link>http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36522</link>
		<dc:creator>lambic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 12:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36522</guid>
		<description>Yes, longer random passwords are harder to remember than shorter random passwords, but the large majority of people don't choose random passwords, they choose something they can remember. Given that, then longer (or at least non-fixed-length) passwords are better for two reasons:

1) It gives the user a chance to have something memorable yet still hard to guess.

2) It means that if my most memorable phrase is "I am the g33kiest" I don't have to try to squish it down into "img3kt" and then remember how I squished it.

Having said all that, it's about time we gave up on passwords altogether, but sadly the alternatives are considered too complex for the average online banker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, longer random passwords are harder to remember than shorter random passwords, but the large majority of people don&#8217;t choose random passwords, they choose something they can remember. Given that, then longer (or at least non-fixed-length) passwords are better for two reasons:</p>
<p>1) It gives the user a chance to have something memorable yet still hard to guess.</p>
<p>2) It means that if my most memorable phrase is &#8220;I am the g33kiest&#8221; I don&#8217;t have to try to squish it down into &#8220;img3kt&#8221; and then remember how I squished it.</p>
<p>Having said all that, it&#8217;s about time we gave up on passwords altogether, but sadly the alternatives are considered too complex for the average online banker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keyofd</title>
		<link>http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36505</link>
		<dc:creator>keyofd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 04:56:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36505</guid>
		<description>Fix length passwords are not automatically worse than their longer cousins.  A lot of it depends on the overall security scheme.  Yes they are easier to brute force, if that is an option.  But for example, my bank will lock my account if I get my password wrong more than 5 times in a row.  Thus brute force guessing is removed from the equation.

Also, it is difficult to remember longer random passwords.  2jf9g!  is a much stronger passwords than iloveyou or your phone number, despite the fact that your phone number is 10 digits long.  If I was trying to hack your account it would be the first thing I would try.

Yes, ideally, you want your password to be longer AND hard to guess, but much of the time when people are forced to pick longer passwords they actually make the password easier to guess by using actual words or phone numbers, or some other kind of meaningful data.   The very first thing a brute force attack will attempt is all the words in the dictionary, so 'morphophonemic'  is a very poor password compared to '19dj^p'.

As far as them re-setting it to something simple, if they didn't advise you to change it immediately, then that's pretty poor security alright.

The bottom line with passwords schemes is this.  The harder you make it to remember, the easier the end-user will try to make it to guess.  Humans are lazy and don't like to put huge amounts of effort into remembering things, forcing frequent password changes, or longer passwords rarely results in users actually choosing better passwords, it usually results in the exact opposite.  At least that's what I've seen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fix length passwords are not automatically worse than their longer cousins.  A lot of it depends on the overall security scheme.  Yes they are easier to brute force, if that is an option.  But for example, my bank will lock my account if I get my password wrong more than 5 times in a row.  Thus brute force guessing is removed from the equation.</p>
<p>Also, it is difficult to remember longer random passwords.  2jf9g!  is a much stronger passwords than iloveyou or your phone number, despite the fact that your phone number is 10 digits long.  If I was trying to hack your account it would be the first thing I would try.</p>
<p>Yes, ideally, you want your password to be longer AND hard to guess, but much of the time when people are forced to pick longer passwords they actually make the password easier to guess by using actual words or phone numbers, or some other kind of meaningful data.   The very first thing a brute force attack will attempt is all the words in the dictionary, so &#8216;morphophonemic&#8217;  is a very poor password compared to &#8216;19dj^p&#8217;.</p>
<p>As far as them re-setting it to something simple, if they didn&#8217;t advise you to change it immediately, then that&#8217;s pretty poor security alright.</p>
<p>The bottom line with passwords schemes is this.  The harder you make it to remember, the easier the end-user will try to make it to guess.  Humans are lazy and don&#8217;t like to put huge amounts of effort into remembering things, forcing frequent password changes, or longer passwords rarely results in users actually choosing better passwords, it usually results in the exact opposite.  At least that&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve seen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Procrasto</title>
		<link>http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36427</link>
		<dc:creator>Procrasto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 18:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lambic.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/05/online-banking-security/#comment-36427</guid>
		<description>I knew a determined cracker once. 

It was a Jacobs. 

That wee bugger just wouldn't give up being flakey... 

How I loved that cracker. 

With a nice slice of mature cheddar...

He wished he had been more secure too.

Oh, that cracker. 

*wanders off chuckling to self*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I knew a determined cracker once. </p>
<p>It was a Jacobs. </p>
<p>That wee bugger just wouldn&#8217;t give up being flakey&#8230; </p>
<p>How I loved that cracker. </p>
<p>With a nice slice of mature cheddar&#8230;</p>
<p>He wished he had been more secure too.</p>
<p>Oh, that cracker. </p>
<p>*wanders off chuckling to self*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
