Hacker News Reader

Comment by shawnz | Hacker News Reader

Is your password "fckgw rhqq2"?

Holy shit! Now that I have changed the password, can you please tell me how did you guess that?

I am also extremely curious! (I did not have this password, but would love to know why it was so common?)

It's the first few sections of product key for one of the original warez scene releases of the windows XP Pro gold master ISO.

I too spent most of my youth re-installing Windows on various machines. :D

I'm only guessing, but this could provide a clue: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define....

What the actual hell. Who even remembers the key? And more importantly why? Why would you install XP once a week to remember it?

I'm shocked by this subthread!

It was the first consumer NT-based Windows, the first with activation and this key, which let you bypass all that, was out before the OS was officially released.

'Back in the day' regular formats were a pretty good way of maintaining system performance. They still are really but computers being an order of magnitude overpowered for all the tasks 90% of users do makes it less relevant. You'd be surprised how easy it is to memorize long series of digits when you enter them a few times. For instance FCKGW. Who was the president in 2001? You'll now literally never forget those 5 letters.

That was the first thing I thought of at the beginning of this thread.

Popular electronics stores would do a in-store setup of your computer before you left with it. Part of this involved entering the users name and windows key.

I probably used the same key to setup over 1000 PC's when I worked there.

Windows XP..

Because bunch of us memorized fckgw rhqq2 yxrkt 8tg6w 2b7q8 for the very same reason back in early 2000s

Yup. One of the most famous longer numbers out there.

Lol. Warez. It's been a long time.

To some. :P

I preferred the rm233 2prqq ... one myself :)

it's even on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_licensing#Leaked_keys

If I recall correctly this image helped make it famous: https://marco.org/2007/06/18/wow-fckgw-has-its-own-wikipedia...

That fact that it's even at the risk of being published on the public web should be enough to disqualify it as a passphrase for everyone.

I've had users use parts of lesser known poems or stories in some foreign language, because who would expect that, right? Turns out that's not what's relevant to a good password but rather whether it is in any available corpus.

If your passphrase consists of something likely to be in wikipedia you are guaranteed to get owned in minutes.

That was the always best trick with new installations. This brings back memories :)

I memorized the win95 one (legit copy) which was easy since it was just digits (and I was way younger). It ended in 18805 iirc. Win98 was a copy from a friend and already had letters, much harder, but I eventually memorized that to. It started with g3pdy bdkv7.

Now that I think of it, a non pirated OEM windows key would have made for a great password. ;)

Perhaps it's a bit late for this now, but one very easy to remember Windows 95 key was "111-1111111"

Devil's Own

Ahh, good old F* George W.

Yeah, I had that one committed to memory in highschool.

Sorry to scare you! I didn't think you were still using it. Honestly, it was the first thing that came to mind in terms of "culturally important serial keys"

It's common enough it's in Urban Dictionary.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fckgw-rhqq2-...

I laughed out loud when I saw the sponsored domain registrar links down the page advertising “FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8.travel” and other TLDs.

.com is taken :(

https://www.godaddy.com/domainsearch/find?checkAvail=1&tmske...

It's also got some kinda german meme on it

So apropos

.dev is not taken (yet). I think this might be one of the best uses for a joke .dev domain. :)

https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=fck...

It's a pretty well-known leaked key. And then you said exactly what part of it you used. Not the smartest move.

It's like saying "My password is the first 10 characters of a really popular book about wizards" and expecting no one to figure it out.

I didn't know the well-known part. Besides, I was assuming that this was only of the multiple, multiple keys. But, it's funny how popular it is, and that so many had a reason to memorize it.

Even if you've provided information which narrows your password down to ~5,000 possible values, you've effectively handed out your password to one of 5,000 internet strangers whom you will never meet in real life.

Then consider that this is Hacker News, and how many of those 5,000 have both the skills and motivation to exploit the information you've provided.

Never give out "hints" about your password. Not its contents, not its exact length, the physical location in which you store a copy, nothing.

If giving out the length hurts anything, there's enough going wrong that you should probably assume it's already compromised.

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the password, a public length of n is almost as secure as a secret length of n, and significantly more secure than a secret length of n-1

Never get into the specifics of a password, but explaining the basic structure should be a tiny impact and well within your margin of safety, or you didn't make a good enough password to start with.

I'm willing to believe that if you could help me understand a bit more why that is so.

Think of it this way: assume someone is trying to brute force your password. For simplicity let's say they know nothing about it, except that its characters are randomly drawn from a 50 character pool. As they guess passwords starting with 1 character, each added character takes 50x longer than all previous guesses put together to guess all possible passwords of that length. Put another way, if they knew the length beforehand, it would only save them from testing about 2% of the overall possible combinations.

Gotcha. I guess I was unclear about what "almost as secure" meant in this context.

So whether providing your length is a tangible security leak or not is essentially a function of the size of your character pool, because if your password is short enough for n-1 to contain a significant percentage of possible combinations then it's probably already short enough to brute force anyway.

That's not right. You can make a secure password using only ABC as your character pool, if you make it 60 characters long. In that case the percentage of combinations covered by n-1 is a full third of the n character combinations, and your attacker can get a 25% speed boost by you revealing the length. But it's still more secure than a 59 character password, and far more secure than a 57 character password, and all of them are extremely secure.

A good way to look at it is to measure the password in bits of randomness. At most, revealing length can shave off one bit. For any reasonable character set it shaves off a small fraction of a bit. And one bit does not make the difference between good or borderline or bad.

A 25% speed boost is what I would call a significant percentage. Especially at 60 characters. My statement holds up.

What you're missing is that a 59 character password (with secret length) is extremely secure, despite the even larger speed boost.

If you worry about any speedup in password cracking that is less than an order of magnitude, your password was too close to failing to start with. Make your password 5% longer, which will make it at least 20x slower to crack, and then you won't have to care if "20x" gets reduced to "15x".

You may say "It's not harmless to give up 25%. What if I give up 25% several times? That could make even a good password become insecure." but there's a limit to how much speedup someone can get from knowing the structure of your password. And the best way to evaluate the strength of a password is to assume that all the structure is public. So I can say that my typical passwords, being 20 mixed-case letters and numbers, all have a security of 2^119. It's possible that an attacker that uses the wrong algorithm would have to guess even more, but I'm not just worried about a clumsy attacker, I'm also worried about a moderately-high-quality attacker. It's a bad idea to depend on that extra .1 bit I could get with this character set, or that extra .4 bits I could get with a smaller character set. Just assume the length is known.

I'm confused about how that has anything to do with disproving my conjecture that whether whether providing your length is a tangible security leak or not is essentially a function of the size of your character pool, because if your password is short enough for n-1 to contain a significant percentage of possible combinations then it's probably already short enough to brute force anyway. You're just redefining what "secure" means.

I think we disagree about what a "tangible leak" is. I don't see it as tangible because it's eating into a tiny margin that you never should have counted in the first place. You do see it as tangible because it might make the attacker's job faster by several percent.

And that's fine, we can have different opinions on that part.

But "probably already short enough to brute force" is definitely not right. That percentage depends entirely on character set, not the length of your password. If your password is just numbers, then n-1 always has 10% as many combinations, whether your password is 5 characters long or 200. If you meant "probably already weak enough to brute force" that's not true either. Lots of passwords with mixed case and numbers and symbols are very short and pretty weak. Lots of passwords with only letters are very long and quite strong because they're made-up phrases. You can't guess the strength of a password just by knowing the percentage of [length n-1 combos] / [length n combos].

But 10% of 100 is magnitudes different from 10% of 10,000. The smaller the length, the more each percent (in terms of entropy) matters when we're talking about complexity as a function of brute force time.

And by that metric losing 2% of 1000 is a far bigger problem than losing 10% of 100,000. I agree that length is the most important factor, I'm just saying that character pool isn't very important to final security.

Only if you have a sufficient length of n.

You need "sufficient" n no matter what your character pool is, and knowing the character pool of a password doesn't let you reliably predict if n is sufficient.

I wasn't making that claim.

Then I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to claim in the second sentence of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19304761

But we don't seem to be resolving anything so I'll just hope you have a good week.

You indirectly state that I claim "knowing the character pool of a password lets you reliably predict if n is sufficient."

Please point to the part of my statement which reflects this idea.

"a function of the size of your character pool, because if your password is short enough for n-1 to contain a significant percentage of possible combinations then it's probably already short enough to brute force anyway"

This seems to say that a small character pool, aka "n-1 containing a significant percentage of possible combinations", implies that your password is "probably already short enough to brute force".

So small character pool means that "probably" the password is short/weak.

I'm saying that a small character pool does not imply that a password is "probably" short/weak.

And to be very clear: Using the size of the character pool to say it's "probably" weak is a form of "reliably predict[ing] if n is sufficient".

What am I misreading?

> What am I misreading?

> So small character pool means that "probably" the password is short/weak.

I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. I never claimed any dependence between the character pool length and password length. They're obviously completely separate properties.

You said that if a password of length n-1 "contains a significant percentage of combinations" compared to a password with length n then "it's probably already short enough to brute force".

Right?

That percentage comes entirely from the character pool.

So character pool -> percentage -> probably short enough to brute force.

What am I reading wrong? The only assumption I made is "compared to a password with length n", because what else would you be comparing length "n-1" to. Otherwise it's a direct quote.

We'll take 60 possible characters (alphanumeric with caps and a few special characters). The summation 1...N of 60^x is (60/59) (60^N - 1). Known length is 60^N. If we assume N is big enough that the minus one isn't important, you can see going from known to unknown only increases the guesses by a factor of 60/59!

While you're correct mathematically, I still think it's a good habit to give zero information about your password. If you attempt to estimate the information leakage with every "hint", sooner or later you'll slip up.

My view is your secrets should be secure even if the attacker knows everything about how they are generated and used. For example: My password is 8192 characters long, leveraging only the ASCII character set (except \n\r\t\0) It is changed every 28days at 11:05am It is only used on exactly 1 website and the username on that website is also only used on that website and randomly generated as well.

Good luck (Tell me how and where I can make this stronger)

With your username, I actually believe you...

Telling someone your password is 8 characters long and memorable vs telling them it is 8192 characters long and unrecallable are two entirely different things.

> Tell me how and where I can make this stronger

Make it 8193 characters long, change it every 27 days at 11:04am, but most importantly: use it on exactly 0 websites.

Good luck

This is a very hilarious post. Bravo, sir, or brava, madam. (Revealing your gender would likely be a security risk - if you leave that unspecified it doubles the space of possibilities!) I don't know what joyless types would downvote you.

Sure, many of us have the skills to exploit that information, but the motivation? This isn't Mos Eisley.

Well I was referring to the intersection between the two. Out of all of the potential people to see OP's post here, there is a much higher likelihood of at least one of them containing both the skillset and the motivation required to exploit the information than on other popular aggregators.

I can already see it. 2 weeks later he will post about having made a fortune with BTC and losing it all.

Plot twist, he's actually phishing this forum for the "I used that password too!" comment replies.

_Taps side of head with index finger_

Lord of the rings?

I feel like that doesn't meant the description, and I really want to know if I'm missing a famous fantasy series.

Like Harry Potter?

... I need the dunce sorting hat.

Must be The Wizard of Oz??

First 10 characters, so it would be: harrypotte

Does Discworld count?

It's probably the most famous software license key, it can even be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_licensing#Leaked_keys

Its even in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_licensing#Leaked_keys

I guess Win XP would be one of the world's most pirated software (ever?)

You said you were 15 and it was a very popular software that needed to be installed relatively often.

I guess people on here are 30-ish, so it happened 15 years ago in the 00s. This hints strongly towards WinXP, which has a few famous leaked Serials.

Whatever way you phrased this I feel Sherlock Homes mode is happening here. And the following is tangential to the OPs headline so it may or may not be interesting to HN folk. Last week in my local paper the daily quiz asked what is the common name for "Galanthus nivalis". To my younger self it would have seemed impossible, but now that I am older and more informed (though NOT smarter) I spotted the 'gala' at the start. Hmmm. The word 'galaxy' starts with 'gala'. I remember that galaxy and milky way are somehow related. Milk is white. What flower (given it is Spring here in Northern Europe) could be white (-ish?). Aha, snowdrop! And to me (seriously) I felt utter astonishment that I was right. I am not smart. But this machine that I seem to have could do that. Well, wow to the maker that did that.

Wow. I remember this key too. It's amazing how far we've come from those days..just think, each open chrome tab takes up as much memory as your entire machine had back then.

That says something just as much about Chrome as it does about "how far we've come"

I was going to guess W7XTC 2YWFB... another semi-well-known key from a slightly earlier era.

Similarly, I was guessing "QW4HD DQCRG"

I've seen the above but for some reason mine was more prevalent in my region. Common enough that even my friends could recite it.

My guess was going to be 09 f9 11 02 9b

dgk7b 9rwyw

bound by the power of cerealz

What's this from? I have definitely seen it before but I can't put my finger on it and a quick search doesn't turn it up like the others on here - VLK for more recent version of Windows perhaps?

I... am not even sure. 2K license most probably.

You're thinking of windows XP

I remember this key. Lol.

We need an XKCD for this!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com