• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Short quote/close tags

  2. URL -> HTML bug?

    http://xwis.net/downloads/Yuri's-Revenge-Multiplayer.exeThis URL gets truncated, looks like a bug.
  3. Usernames: why?

    Where did that 'rule' come from? Wasn't part of your original claim.Anyway, you seem more interested in 'winning' a childish fight than in a constructive discussion. Peace out.
  4. Usernames: why?

    It's not a variable, it's a separator. It's still one field, isn't it? You claimed two fields were more secure than one (combined) field. Why would a separator not be allowed in such a combined field?
  5. Usernames: why?

    Ah, that's your problem. Use a separator when merging your username and password. Now the combination spells out goo|berville, goob|erville or whatever and we're back to the same strength as two separate fields.
  6. Usernames: why?

    Number of possible username (length: U) / password (length: P) combinations over an alphabet of size X: X^(U+P)Number of possible passwords (length: U+P) over the same alphabet: X^(U+P)...In general the lengths aren't known, but this generalizes to unknown lengths.
  7. Usernames: why?

    True, my bad. If passwords were guaranteed to be strong and unique using just the password would be fine. Unfortunately that can't be guaranteed.
  8. Usernames: why?

    Are the two of you really arguing that it's harder to crack "XTF|password" vs "XTF", "password"? Total length is the same and that's basically all that counts.
  9. Usernames: why?

    That'd make account recovery a bit hard. But in some systems a single password (without username) is indeed used, think WPA for example.
  10. Usernames: why?

    Security depends on total entropy, not on the number of fields. They could as well be trying every combination of user/pass with total size <= 10 and they'd be finding your pass / word account too, wouldn't they? The effort would be equal.