Eebster the Great wrote:Sure, but again, there just aren't that many companies out there. I could conceivably add the name of every electronics manufacturer in history to my word list without substantially increasing its size.
This is still just nitpicking the specifics of my examples rather than the base algorithm. Neither of the latter suggestions is an electronics company, and one of them is entirely fictional. If you think you can expand your word list to include any company ever that produced something with a numerical designation, both fictional and real, you probably deserve to break that password because of the sheer volume of work you put into the effort.
Besides, you could always omit the manufacturer altogether and instead use the name of the cat of the designer if you know it. Whatever floats your boat, really, as long as you can recall that information by association with the base object.
And to clarify. Suggesting technology was for illustration purposes only. One can use virtually any object. If you wish, you could base your password around the Latin name of a rare species of snake, the colour of it's eyes and the number of scales on it's belly, and you would still be conforming to the outlined system.
Eebster the Great wrote:Assuming the hackers do not know you use these names, the names are not also names in any other real setting, and your graphic novel is not visible enough for them to include anything from it, then you are perhaps correct. But since (as pointed out before) you have now revealed that you use these for your passwords, they could probably just look up your graphic novels and use the relatively few possible names from them as their (now incredibly tiny) word list.
I'll grant you that password's weak point is always the human element, but I hope you realise I would never willingly disclose (and on a public forum, no less!) any information that would endanger my actual passwords. Like I stressed in my earlier post, the whole point
of my system is keeping the base object secret. None of the names I use exist, are known and will be known by any other person. I made sure of that.
Eebster the Great wrote:We are indeed making the assumption. If you want to see why, you should read through this thread.
If one keeps to the one
rule of the system, which not revealing any
information about the base object, any "suspicion" is only as good as trying to guess a random measurement of a non existent object in fictional units.