<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:27 PM Rob Landley <<a href="mailto:rob@landley.net">rob@landley.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 12/8/20 12:38 PM, enh wrote:<br>
> In any case, it's a complete rewrite of the password generation logic, although<br>
> that's now a drop-in replacement for a tiny code block. If you think it's worth<br>
> doing, I can do it...<br>
<br>
Looking at the history, the original description of this command back in 1988<br>
was "random but pronounceable password generator":<br>
<br>
<a href="https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sources.misc/c/7nvaNzbjMXk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sources.misc/c/7nvaNzbjMXk</a><br>
<br>
So... maybe? But not right now, I've reopened the shell can of worms and am<br>
hip-deep again at the moment. (The set command changes the positional parameters<br>
and the allocation lifetime means I need function context to stick a delete list<br>
on, which I need to implement function calls anyway so might as well do that now...)<br>
<br>
> i have no opinion on that, not having used either, but did think it might be<br>
> worth changing the docs to match reality:<br>
> <br>
> - -s --secure Generate more random passwords.<br>
> + -s --secure Generate random passwords (default).<br>
<br>
I already checked in a commit that made -s disable the two high bit checks to<br>
make punctuation and capital letters occur less often. The result is more random<br>
(and less human readable) passwords.<br>
<br>
Another thing the "here's a screen full of passwords" does is let you pick one<br>
you like. I admit our code is aesthetically inferior (for native english<br>
speakers), but it's small and simple.<br>
<br>
> i see there's also a secpwgen(1) but that seems to be slightly different again?<br>
<br>
$ man secpwgen<br>
No manual entry for secpwgen<br>
<br>
I'd rather not go down that rathole, thanks. :)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>huh, from the fact that pwgen(1) refers to secpwgen(1) [at least in the copy i found on the web] i assumed they were related. (none of my systems have either.)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Should the command exist: "make bloatcheck" puts this at 693 bytes on x86-64,<br>
which is reasonable for what it does. A user with a use case asked for it, it's<br>
an existing command (dating back to 1988 and currently in version 2.07 of the<br>
rewrite by a kernel developer), and I can see an embedded system wanting to<br>
"pwgen -1" and then spit the wireless password out on a tiny LCD or similar.<br>
<br>
Should we try to improve the output: these days passwords smell like a PIN for 2<br>
factor authentication to me. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>yeah, the only place i've seen these "human friendly" passwords used personally is as one half of two-factor systems.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">An ATM hands out MONEY if you stick in your card<br>
and enter just a 4 digit PIN, and while we could make PINs longer and add<br>
letters and punctuation the POINT is just to alert a human and flag the card as<br>
maybe stolen if you do it wrong 3 times in a row. (3 in 10000 chance of<br>
guessing, and it's got video cameras to see who tried.) Even when the second<br>
factor is just "user account name" plus "IP address you're trying from", that's<br>
enough to flag multiple consecutive failed attempts (and ddos is also easy to<br>
spot), and brute forcing just 8 lower case letters is 1 in 209 billion. No<br>
password protects from a key logger and if somebody gets an /etc/shadow file to<br>
brute force at their leisure without attempt ratelimiting I doubt it matters how<br>
long/complex the passwords are?<br>
<br>
A "be nicer to humans" aesthetic argument makes sense to me, but is also almost<br>
by definition bikeshedding. A "be more secure" argument is above my pay grade. I<br>
already switched random sources, beyond that I expect the security guys to tsk<br>
sadly, tell you to use an ssh key, get a USB dongle on top of that, and change<br>
your biometric data frequently.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>indeed.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Rob<br>
</blockquote></div></div>