On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:30:32 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:18*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:19:34 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"









wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:32*am, Mark
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:41:42 +0100, alan
wrote:
On 27/09/2012 15:02, John Williamson wrote:

In my case, none of these are written down anywhere,
except the username and card details.

At work my list of username/passwords fits on two A4 sheets
of paper.

At home the lists fits on to 5 A4 sheets of paper. While I will admit to
some similarity in user/passwords I cannot remember if I've put $$123 or
$$456 or $$abc at the end or beginning of each of the passwords.

And then there are the systems that will only accept passwords that
include a random set of "characters" that need to be changed on a
regular basis. Does any organisation think these types of passwords are
more secure when they will be written down by EVERYONE that has to use
them.

I would assume that any password that's simple enough to remember
would also be easy to guess.

You assume wrong. I defy you to guess my pasword. "Simple to remember"
means many different things to different people.

You may have a good way of generating passwords that are difficult to
guess but the vast majority of people pick stupid passwords which are
easy to guess.

Nice wriggle from "easy to remember" to "stupid".

It's not a wriggle. I've already covered the 'easy to remember' part.
You have not supported your assertion so maybe you shouldn't bother.

If you can't support your original asertion, don't bother.

ROTFL. This is usenet, not a court of law.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?