←back to thread

430 points tambourine_man | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
eviks ◴[] No.41879128[source]
Why not just use real words with longer password instead? That'd be easier to type than these shorter "word-like" syllables
replies(3): >>41879137 #>>41879148 #>>41879247 #
lemagedurage ◴[] No.41879247[source]
When typing through a TV remote or console controller, shorter passwords might be preferred, especially if parts are still easily memorizable.

Also, I think some website still have a relatively low upper limit for password length.

replies(1): >>41879275 #
wlesieutre ◴[] No.41879275[source]
Apple TV lets you use your phone to input passwords, so in Apple's ecosystem they wouldn't care about that. And being Apple, they wouldn't care about people needing to use anyone else's devices.

Website length limits are a problem though, in the worst case there are websites that silently truncate your password so you don't even realize that the first 12 (or whatever) characters are the only part that matters. If your first 12 characters are two words with a dash in the middle, that could be a real vulnerability.

Another benefit of passkeys is that it limits the ability of websites to do that kind of stupid shit.

replies(2): >>41879373 #>>41879573 #
jonhohle ◴[] No.41879573[source]
> And being Apple, they wouldn't care about people needing to use anyone else's devices.

Did you RTFA?

>> To make these passwords easier to type on suboptimal keyboard layouts like my colleague’s game controller, where the mode switching might be difficult, these new passwords are actually dominated by lowercase characters. And to make it easier to short-term have in your head little chunks of it to bring over to the other device, the passwords are based on syllables. That’s consonant, vowel, consonant patterns. With these considerations put together, in our experience, these passwords are actually a lot easier to type on a foreign, weird keyboard, in the rare instances where that might be needed for some of our users.

replies(1): >>41879784 #
1. ◴[] No.41879784[source]