On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:04:32 -0400, Arthur T. wrote:
>
>One company had arcane RACF rules for password composition but
>"for security reasons" wouldn't even tell the users what those
>rules were.
>
This is reminiscent of the SMP/E integrity flaw: use of SMP/E
must be restricted to users who can be
On 13 Jul 2010 11:05:44 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:)
zedgarhoo...@gmail.com (zMan) wrote:
I use a site that requires 8-byte passwords, changed every n days, with no
more than 3 characters from the previous password in a row and at least one
digit,, which can't be leading or tr
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
zedgarhoo...@gmail.com (zMan) writes:
> OK, this is topic drift, but: are you saying that having stringent password
> requirements is a failure? Because I sure thin
On 13 Jul 2010 11:05:44 -0700, zedgarhoo...@gmail.com (zMan) wrote:
>OK, this is topic drift, but: are you saying that having stringent password
>requirements is a failure? Because I sure think it is -- it just encourages
>folks to use patterns or otherwise weak passwords and/or to write them down
OK, this is topic drift, but: are you saying that having stringent password
requirements is a failure? Because I sure think it is -- it just encourages
folks to use patterns or otherwise weak passwords and/or to write them down
anyway.
I use a site that requires 8-byte passwords, changed every n d
On 13 Jul 2010 08:11:48 -0700, ken.porow...@cit.com (Ken Porowski)
wrote:
>Now, I'll sit back and enjoy the debate on the question if an 'operator error'
>counts as a 'glitch'.
>
>For the opening shot in this, I'd argue: yes. While no system can ever be
>totally idiot proof, human intervention
6 matches
Mail list logo
