Beware of these "Easy Password" apps

BunnyJ said:

I think I refereed to storing them in you head.. didn't I?? And I didn't say anything about storing passwords on a separate computer... I use paper. Old school.

jimbo said like 5 posts ago that the safest way is to store passwords on a laptop, and close this laptop away.

i directly quoted him and said that storing passwords in your head only is safer.

then you quoted me and stated something about password expiration times, which doesnt have anything to do with what jimbo and me were debating about (-> password storage locations).

my statement that storing passwords in your head only is 100% correct standing alone as it is.
i didnt mention anything of not letting passwords expire or letting them expire. this is another aspect of password security.
so i was just surprised that your post came along like you wanted to correct me. which you cant, because i wasnt making any statements about password change times at all.

BunnyJ said:

No.. I had no intent in contacting you or discussing this with you. I just made a point that frequent password changes is best and for me I like to keep them on paper. But.. YMMV.

Jeff

Quoting me in first place then doesn't exactly underline the intention of not wanting to react on my statement.
I was of the opinion that a discussion board actually is the place where replies (especially those with a quote from another user) to topics automatically become part of a discussion. Else you could just talk to yourself, right? But well everyone crafts his own world.

Fragment said:

jimbo said like 5 posts ago that the safest way is to store passwords on a laptop, and close this laptop away.

i directly quoted him.

.......................l.

I'm not sure I said anything about LAPTOPS -- this is what I actually POSTED. :

I'm of the old school-- a black notebook hidden away in a reasonably inaccessible place seems the best (and "Lowest tech") solution of all.

By NOTEBOOK I meant an old fashioned PAPER notebook -- I see these days words have a habit of changing their meaning or being mis-interpreted -- I suppose a Notebook can mean a PC these days however from the contextual sense of the Post I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. !!!!!!

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

I'm not sure I said anything about LAPTOPS -- this is what I actually POSTED. :

I'm of the old school-- a black notebook hidden away in a reasonably inaccessible place seems the best (and "Lowest tech") solution of all.

By NOTEBOOK I meant an old fashioned PAPER notebook -- I see these days words have a habit of changing their meaning or being mis-interpreted -- I suppose a Notebook can mean a PC these days however from the contextual sense of the Post I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. !!!!!!

Cheers
jimbo

Haha, yeah well that's a funny ambiguity indeed! Well I really thought you mean laptop by notebook.

Doesn't matter anyways because my statement is still true. Not having any additional media (old school or new school) with your password(s) is the safest thing. Learn to remember them in your head and you have the safest solution because by using an additional storage (sheet of paper, "notebook", laptop, smartphone, etc) you put in one weak link into the chain.

The chain consists best of your brain and the system you enter the password to access it.

To be accurate though. A laptop, as in portable personal computer, with all passwords stored on it in an encrypted vault and then locked away in the "reasonably inaccessible place" you speak of is still safer than a "notebook", as in diary, or sheet of paper with the passwords written on it kept in the same place.

Fragment said:

Technically, the most secure is your head only.
Of course. If you dont trust your own memorization capabilities...then you have a problem or if you are not able to estimate them...

I think with advancing years (luckily I'm hoping I'm many years away from that point), and certain illnesses, people's memory capability can get worse, so there does need to be a better way for passwords than just trying to remember them.

Hi there

Biological methods are one possible scenario - but I'm sure we've all seen some Hollywood movies where they "Bad Guys" cut off thumbs, eyes etc to fox the biological detector.

Probably the safest way would be to have a DNA scanner and reader --not sure how practicable one of those would be. However at the present time with our current state of technology this would probably be the safest method as DNA is unique or so rare that more than one individual has identical DNA that you could ignore any matches.

I think that even Identical Twins don't have exact DNA copies. Obviously they'd share most of it - but 100% identical ??

http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-a...ally-identical

Any Biologists / Doctors here --I'm an Engineer so I could probably understand how this stuff is measured or even how one would create a machine to measure it -- but exactly what I'd be measuring !!! over to others.

Cheers
jimbo

Cliff S said:

On both sides of my family we have Alzheimer's, even if I forgot where the written passwords were, I would eventually find them, not if they get lost in my brain.(Devils Advocate)

sorry for you and your family then.
as you live in germany, i will let you know that about 1.2 million people there suffer from alzheimer, of which 95% are older than 60.
with germany having like what? 80 million? inhabitants that makes 1.5% of germans not fit for using the method of remembering passwords as safest method (well it would still be safest... but also not practical if they themself forget it right after setting it )

that on the other hand leaves 98.5% of the inhabitants able to remember passwords in their head.
and even if not all the 98.5% are fit to remember because of other diseases like dementia.
the BIG majority of people from 6 - 60 are definitely eligible to use their brains to store passwords.
and for those people who can do it, it stays the most safest way.

again sorry for your family not being able to be part of that.

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

Biological methods are one possible scenario - but I'm sure we've all seen some Hollywood movies where they "Bad Guys" cut off thumbs, eyes etc to fox the biological detector.

Probably the safest way would be to have a DNA scanner and reader --not sure how practicable one of those would be. However at the present time with our current state of technology this would probably be the safest method as DNA is unique or so rare that more than one individual has identical DNA that you could ignore any matches.

I think that even Identical Twins don't have exact DNA copies. Obviously they'd share most of it - but 100% identical ??

http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-a...ally-identical

Any Biologists / Doctors here --I'm an Engineer so I could probably understand how this stuff is measured or even how one would create a machine to measure it -- but exactly what I'd be measuring !!! over to others.

Cheers
jimbo

there are different kinds of twins. monocygotic twins technically have 100% same DNA.
BUT! through punctual mutations during their lives the DNA changes and those punctual mutations can be found if you have extracted and visualized the complete DNA of each of the twins. so in the end they start with the same DNA at insemination and from then on punctual mutations may apppear.
by the way, although monocygotic twins basically have the same DNA (or lets be accurate "start with the same DNA") they dont have the same fingerprints. EVEN if there were no punctual mutations!!!

and to your method - you mean DNA scans instead of fingerprint scans?
i mean both can be tricked.
DNA through acquiring sweat, urine, hair, spit or semen of the person with access
fingerprints through... well we all know that anyway cuz of CSI:Miami