On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:00 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
夜神　岩男 wrote:
On 12/29/2011 10:21 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2011 13:07:56 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.12.2011 12:56, schrieb Leonard den Ottolander:
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 12:29 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.12.2011 09:17, schrieb Bennett Haselton: > Even though the ssh key is more > random, they're both sufficiently random that it would take at least > hundreds of years to get in by trial and error.
if you really think your 12-chars password is as secure as a ssh-key protcected with this password you should consider to take some education in security
<snip> >> It is very inconvenient for people who need to login to their servers >> from random remote locations (ie. people who travel a lot or work in >> hardware-controlled environment). >> >> Besides, it is essentially a question of overkill. If password is not >> good enough, you could argue that the key is also not good enough --- >> two keys (or a larger one) would be more secure. Where do you draw the >> line? <snip> > When traveling I log in to my home server and work servers with my > laptop. Its really a *lot* easier than using a bunch of pasword schemes. <snip> Ah, that brings to mind another issue with only passwords: synchronization. I worked as a subcontractor for a *huge* US co a few years ago. I've *never* had to write passwords down... but for there, I had a page of them! Our group's, the corporate test systems, the corporate *production* systems, and *each* had their own, along with their own password aging (there was *no* single sign-on), the contracting co's....
We use PasswordSafe to solve that one. There are other similar products.
Cheers,
Cliff