[belorn]

The algorithm is not targeted against the type of password which the XKCD comic suggests. The algorithm is designed to exploit common human behavior, which is similar to the XKCD method but not identical. The significant difference is that human behavior in picking words is not random, while the XKCD method requires the word selection process to be truly random. The "iloveyousomuch" example by Steube is unlikely to be picked randomly.

salmonellaeater is right, Steube misunderstands the comic. The idea of the comic is to pick a small random selection of the 250,000 distinct words in a oxford dictionary, rather than 8 of the 95 letters from all ASCII printable characters. A selection of 3 words has then higher entropy than 8 random characters, because 250,000^3 is a bigger number than 95^8. The question then is, will 3 random words really be easier to remember than 8 ASCII printable characters?

The downside to the Schneier scheme, is that each is a common sentence (low entropy), with a chosen transformation algorithm added. Thus the quality of the password will depend on the number of transformation algorithms, and the quality of each one. If we are to use the one first described to create "tlpWENT2m", we get a password strength like:

Using strictly the first letter, would only do 2x linear increase in entropy over just searching for common sentences. Change any occurrence of common numbers substitutes for words adds (0-2x) entropy increase. Writing one of the words in all caps means 6x increase in entropy. Combined, tlpWENT2m is slightly less secure than "This little piggy went to market" + two [random number below 10] or a single letter at the end.

[dasil003]

Where are you guys getting this? All I read was this:

> Steube was able to crack "momof3g8kids" because he had "momof3g" in his 111 million dict and "8kids" in a smaller dict.

> "The combinator attack got it! It's cool," he said. Then referring to the oft-cited xkcd comic, he added: "This is an answer to the batteryhorsestaple thing."

It sounds to me like he's combining words randomly, not "exploiting common human behavior".

[barrkel]

He found a password by 2 words randomly from two dictionaries of different sizes, so he only had m * n combinations to choose from, and his n is a lot smaller than m.

Whereas the xkcd approach is more like m * m * m * m.

In other words, exponentiation > multiplication.

[belorn]

Correct. What I meant with "exploiting common human behavior", is that the dictionaries the attacker used is built from list of old passwords found in previous attacks. Those dictionary will be order of magnitude smaller than a dictionary of the English language, but attackers know that people tend to pick passwords (or in this case, compilation of passwords) that someone else has already thought of before. Its a simple observed behavior that people in general tend to think alike, and simply do not think randomly even if individually, it "feels" random.

[tripzilch]

> The question then is, will 3 random words really be easier to remember than 8 ASCII printable characters?

In a sense, yes. The xkcd comic also illustrates this. A common technique to remember a sequence of arbitrary things is to transform the things into concepts or objects, and transform this sequence into a ridiculous story or visual image (the crazier it is, the better it sticks in the mind, plus it's more fun).

If you use words instead of random characters, you get to skip the "transform into concepts or objects" step, as well as you don't need to string as much of them together in a crazy but coherent picture/story.

Of course it's important to build the picture after the words, not the other way around, because then you'd probably lose some entropy again.