<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should we change passwords every 90 days?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://spiresecurity.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://spiresecurity.com/?p=1093</link>
	<description>Risk and Cybersecurity Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:28:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://spiresecurity.com/?p=1093&#038;cpage=1#comment-1041</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spiresecurity.com/?p=1093#comment-1041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ds -

You make a good point. See here for a previous take on it: http://spiresecurity.com/?p=355. I would point out, as I tried to in the previous article, that there is more to password compromise than the crack itself. I would assert that the crack is much less common than the phish and that my argument still holds up with phishing. In addition, we shouldn&#039;t forget the time/effort it takes to get the hash prior to the crack.

&quot;Best practice&quot; is a tricky concept but I agree some sort of multifactor auth solution would fit. I just don&#039;t believe the risk is particularly high for many of the things we require passwords for and so &quot;best&quot; is unnecessarily costly and &quot;reasonable&quot; would work fine.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ds -</p>
<p>You make a good point. See here for a previous take on it: <a href="http://spiresecurity.com/?p=355" rel="nofollow">http://spiresecurity.com/?p=355</a>. I would point out, as I tried to in the previous article, that there is more to password compromise than the crack itself. I would assert that the crack is much less common than the phish and that my argument still holds up with phishing. In addition, we shouldn&#8217;t forget the time/effort it takes to get the hash prior to the crack.</p>
<p>&#8220;Best practice&#8221; is a tricky concept but I agree some sort of multifactor auth solution would fit. I just don&#8217;t believe the risk is particularly high for many of the things we require passwords for and so &#8220;best&#8221; is unnecessarily costly and &#8220;reasonable&#8221; would work fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
