On Thursday 29 December 2011 13:07:56 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 29.12.2011 12:56, schrieb Leonard den Ottolander: > > Hello Reindl, > > > > 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 > > > > Bennett clearly states that he understands the ssh key is more random, > > but wonders why a 12 char password (of roughly 6 bits entropy per byte > > assuming upper & lower case characters and numbers) wouldn't be > > sufficient. > > so explain me why discuss to use or not to use the best > currently availbale method in context of security? Using the ssh key can be problematic because it is too long and too random to be memorized --- you have to carry it on a usb stick (or whereever). This provides an additional point of failure should your stick get lost or stolen. Human brain is still by far the most secure information-storage device. :-) 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? Best, :-) Marko