Question

Analyze the following computer password in terms of how secure it might be. Describe the criteria you use in determining its strengths and weaknesses.

born2ski4evr!

Answer 1

Short answer: This password is only marginally better than a simple word — it’s vulnerable to modern cracking methods and common-password attacks. If you use it on any important account, change it and enable multi-factor authentication.

Why (quick summary)
- Length is decent (13 characters), and it includes digits and a punctuation mark.
- But it’s built from short dictionary words and common leetspeak substitutions (“2” = “to”, “4” = “for”, “evr” ≈ “ever”), which are easy for attackers to guess with wordlists and rules. That wipes out most of the entropy the length would otherwise give.

Criteria used to judge it
- Length: longer is better; 13 chars is promising in isolation.
- Character variety: uses lowercase, digits, and one symbol; but letters are all lowercase and there’s only one symbol.
- Predictability / dictionary content: contains recognizable words and phrases (born, ski, ever/evr), which are highly guessable.
- Common patterns and substitutions: common leet substitutions (2→to, 4→for) and a trailing punctuation mark are among the first transformations attackers try.
- Entropy vs. attack model: whether the attacker must guess online (rate-limited) or offline (hashes + GPU, very high guess rates) matters a lot.
- Reuse and exposure: a reused password or one that’s appeared in breaches is much more risky.
- Usability / memorability: it’s memorable, which is good — but memorability alone isn’t sufficient.

Estimate of strength (non-rigorous)
- If treated as random characters: ~85 bits of entropy (unlikely here).
- Realistically (because it’s phrase-based, dictionary words + leet): effective entropy is much lower — often comparable to 20–40 bits depending on attacker strategy. That makes it crackable with common wordlists + rules in a short time in an offline attack. Online attacks with rate limits and lockouts are safer but still risky if the same password is reused.

Concrete weaknesses
- Contains common words/phrase structure (“born to ski forever”) — very guessable.
- Uses predictable digit substitutions (2, 4) and a trailing “!” — these are among the first rules applied by password crackers.
- All-lowercase letters reduces character-set complexity.
- If reused across sites, a single breach compromises multiple accounts.

Concrete recommendations
- Change this password if it’s used anywhere important.
- Use a unique password per account (password manager makes this easy).
- Prefer either:
- A long randomized password generated by a password manager (12–20+ characters, full character set), or
- A long unpredictable passphrase of several unrelated words (e.g., 4 random words), optionally with punctuation or digits for extra entropy.
- Enable multi-factor authentication (MFA) wherever available.
- Don’t rely on simple leetspeak substitutions — they add little security.
- Consider checking whether your account or email has appeared in breaches (use a reputable breach-check service that doesn’t require you to paste the password).

If you’d like, I can:
- Suggest example passphrase constructions (not specific passwords to reuse), or
- Show how to estimate entropy for alternative passwords you’re considering.