|
|
|
|
|
by pbhjpbhj
5007 days ago
|
|
>Again, you focus on an individual detail to the detriment of the big picture. // Ostensibly the difference here is that you're looking from the administrative side (it appears) and I'm looking from the user's side. As for "again". Surely using your regular account makes for a bigger picture as I could see where you're coming from, your general demeanour, your desire to argue incessantly around the point whilst not broaching the point itself, that sort of thing. From your side the choice of name as specific may well be "the big picture" but from anyone else reading the discussion you've removed a lot of out-of-band information that could be pertinent. Which to be honest makes me chuckle as you accuse me, probably rightly in this instance, of narrow focus. >A simple MD5 hash is "about as bad as plaintext" because the vast majority of passwords will be trivially cracked if it's used // With plaintext all passwords will be "cracked" in zero time. With MD5 good passwords will be expensive to crack. ROT-13 is about as bad as plaintext. MD5 IMO is better to a point that this claim was exaggeration. So we'll go straight to the rub - you disagree that there was any exaggeration in that initial statement? |
|
From the user's side, proper password storage practices mean your passwords are far less likely to be compromised.
> Surely using your regular account
Uh, and what "regular account" would that be? You assume much, but know little.
> you disagree that there was any exaggeration in that initial statement?
Yes.