The University has been requring certain departments to sit through a 15 minute presentation on using good passwords. One of the handouts had a chart showing how long it takes to crack passwords by how long they are and how many types of characters they've got in them. I'm interested in the subject because I typically assign passwords to my users when they start work. I wrote a simple program that takes words from the dictionary that are between 9 and 15 letters long, and which don't end in 'ing', 's', or 'ed'. The program then splits the word in the middle somewhere, inserts a random number, a random symbol, and capitalizes one of the following letters in the word.
For example, the script gets the word 'misdirection', inserts a '1' and a '%', and then capitalizes one of the letters in the word. The resulting password is 'misdi1%recTion'.
That password is composed of the letters [a-zA-Z], symbols [!@#$%^&*+=;:?], and numbers [0-9], so the set of characters to search for is 26 + 26 + 13 + 10 = 75. The password is 14 characters long, so the space a brute force attack has to search is 7514 = 1.8 x 1028 which is a huge number.
I did a few experiments with my workstation, which has an AMD Opteron 246 processor inside. Performing a brute force attack requires encrypting all these possible combinations until a match is found. So the type of encryption used is important. My computer can perform about 450,000 encryptions per second if the encryption is the old style DES encryption used on most proprietary Unix platforms. But all of my servers are running Linux, which uses md5 style passwords, and my computer can only do about 3,500 encryptions per second. So 1.8 x 1028 possible passwords / 3,500 encryptions / second means it'll take about 1.6 quadrillion years on my computer to crack it (or half that time on average).
Unfortunately, most passwords aren't cracked using brute force, they're cracked by using a dictionary attack, and since my passwords are generated using a dictionary, that means they're considerably more vulnerable. The question is, does my method of randomly inserting a number and symbol in the middle of a dictionary word (as well as randomly upper casing a letter) defeat a dictionary attack?
I don't know the answer. But I've done some experiments with pathologically bad passwords to see what might happen. On my computer a simple dictionary word is cracked within seconds. And a simple dictionary word with numbers appended (I tried 'barf51') is cracked in two and a half hours. So the jury is still out on my method. But I'll bet that my method isn't as safe as I thought it was at first. It's certainly better than the user that uses her husband's name, the name of the dog, or their license plate number for a password. Most cracking software has information about the typical behavior of users built into it, so it will start by searching the space defined by their username, their domain name, and common names. 'cswingle11' would be a pretty poor choice for me. 'misdi1%recTion' would undoubtably be better.
The only way to really generate passwords is to do it in such a way that there isn't a pattern (like a dictionary word) that the computer can identify and use to reduce the number of combinations the cracking program needs to test. So a better approach to passwords is probably to use a database of common phrases, and pull the first letters from the phrase, insert some random cases, symbols and numbers, and use that. Perhaps the 'fortune' command offers som possibilities here:
$ fortune -n 80 | head -1 There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
So: 'tindnaccec' --> TindnAcceC --> TindnA7#cceC
That's 7512 = 3 x 1022 and because it's effectively random (unless cracking tools learn about the 'fortune' database and how it might be manipulated. . .), it'll take 286 billion years for a computer equivalent to mine to crack this.
Sounds like a Python script in the making.
Earlier today I was reading pragmatik's blog and he mentioned seeing three auto accidents (one fatal) on his way to Baltimore. It's been a subject on my mind recently as a graduate student friend of mine was recently killed in an auto accident. I decided to visit the Statistical Abstract of the United States to look at death and accident rates. Death rate figures appear in Table 102 in the 2004-2005 Abstract. For all Americans, the rates per 100,000 people in 2002 were:
(apologies for the formatting of the table. I can't seem to figure out the column formatting stuff.)
That rate of 35.5 people per 100,000 translates into 102,303 people in 2002 that died by accident. The next table in the Abstract (Table 103) breaks these down into smaller categories. For accidents:
|Accident||Rate / 100,000||2002 Count|
Fourty-four thousand people is an awful lot to die on our roads in 2002. That's 122 people every day, or a major airline crash a few times a week. There's no further detail on these accidents, but it would be interesting to know in what percentage of cases alcohol was involved, and what percentage of the fatalities weren't wearing their seatbelts.
On a lighter note (sort of), Table 175 shows the Injuries Associated with Consumer Products, shown as estimated emergency room treatments in 2001. A few numbers: 1,087,546 people went to the emergency room after an incident on the stairs, 349,679 people had trouble with a door that was bad enough they had to see a doctor. 118,501 people hurt themselves with their footwear, and 47,210 people were injured by their televisions. Bizzare. I knew television was dangerous, but I never thought I'd have to go to the emergency room because of it!
The salmon I smoked yesterday turned out really good. I vacuum packaged it righ t after I got back from Chitina back in June, and the fillets were still bright red when I pulled them out of the freezer. I marinated two fillets for half an hour in 1/2 cup of pickling salt (and enough water to fill up the ziplock), rins ed them off, and then marinated them overnight in 1/2 cup pickling salt, 1/2 cup brown sugar and 1 tablespoon black pepper. I smoked them for 3 hours on my cha rcoal smoker using soaked mesquite chunks for the smoke. I normally use alder I cut from the yard, but it was below zero yesterday and I got lazy and used the store-bought mesquite chunks. I think mesquite gives a more bacony flavor, whil e the alder has a more resinous, traditional flavor. BTW, the FoodSaver I used to vacuum package the salmon has been a great purchase . The difference between the salmon I froze in ziplock bags the previous summer and the salmon that's been vacuum packaged is like, well, grey old salmon vs. b right red fresh salmon. I occasionally have a problem where the sealer doesn't quite seal the bag, but now I just double-seal each bag and I haven't had an iss ue since.