| > Well, is that an unreasonable assumption? With passwords knowing what one person's password used to be or even knowing one hash of their current password tells you nothing about a different hash of their current password. Yea it is, this is very different from a password, even though it's being used in a similar way. Lets take fingerprints as an example - algorithm A uses minutiae points, and algorithm B does a simple normalized cross correlation between the two images. While this is a toy example, you can see there is a clear difference in what is being stored or even hashed. > At the very least it brings down the solution space to a much smaller size the more data points are used, which is the opposite of what happens when more data points (characters) are used in alpha-numeric passwords. No, it doesn't. You'd have better luck using a facebook profile picture printed on an old inkjet than you would trying to use a specific template as the 'solution space' of what other templates may be. > But is it as frustrating as someone explaining their reasoning for their statement and then you ignoring that reasoning to discuss their closing statement as the entire argument? I admit that it wasn't the classiest way to respond, and i apologize for it (i'm not going to delete it though, i wrote it and i won't run from it), but the same arguments keep coming up over and over again, and it's very clear that the users making these statements not reading any previous replies so i wasn't going to waste my time going over all the points again and again. |