• Max (unregistered) in reply to airdrik
    airdrik:
    So why are they checking the age of the password?
    What really gets me is that they check for a minimum age. Those other fields obviously are just using 0 where they should use some positive integer, but the minimum age makes no sense.

    Consider: Password must be at least (8) characters. --> Makes sense Password cannot repeat last (3) passwords. --> Annoying but understandable Password must be at least (90) days old. --> Wait, what?

    So if I successfully set my password I can't log in for 90 days? And the same for every time I change my password? Or can I still use the older password in the meantime?

  • Neville Flynn (unregistered) in reply to whiskeyjack
    whiskeyjack:
    Leopard Snow? Internet Explorer?

    Clearly it's a web page about Leopard Snow X OS Mac.

  • Whatever (unregistered) in reply to method1

    Thank you, method1, for finally explaining what clbuttic means. (I was just too lazy to search for it at home, and I SURE wasn't going to search from work for it.)

  • (cs)

    Date in the drive == getting BJ while driving?

  • airdrik (unregistered) in reply to Max
    Max:
    airdrik:
    So why are they checking the age of the password?
    What really gets me is that they check for a minimum age. Those other fields obviously are just using 0 where they should use some positive integer, but the minimum age makes no sense.

    Consider: Password must be at least (8) characters. --> Makes sense Password cannot repeat last (3) passwords. --> Annoying but understandable Password must be at least (90) days old. --> Wait, what?

    So if I successfully set my password I can't log in for 90 days? And the same for every time I change my password? Or can I still use the older password in the meantime?

    Maybe it means you have to set it to a password that you've used at least 90 days ago.

  • (cs) in reply to Whatever
    Whatever:
    Thank you, method1, for finally explaining what clbuttic means. (I was just too lazy to search for it at home, and I SURE wasn't going to search from work for it.)

    You ARE joking, aren't you? I only posted a couple of equivalents(somewhat sarcastically) cos someone said they couldn't understand what they were originally.

  • ted (unregistered) in reply to Max
    Max:
    airdrik:
    So why are they checking the age of the password?
    What really gets me is that they check for a minimum age. Those other fields obviously are just using 0 where they should use some positive integer, but the minimum age makes no sense.

    Consider: Password must be at least (8) characters. --> Makes sense Password cannot repeat last (3) passwords. --> Annoying but understandable Password must be at least (90) days old. --> Wait, what?

    So if I successfully set my password I can't log in for 90 days? And the same for every time I change my password? Or can I still use the older password in the meantime?

    I've seen this before, but never for 90 days. It's usually 24 hours. So if you change your password, you can't change it again for 24 hours. It's fucking stupid.

  • (cs)
    • ******* **** *** ******* ********* ** * ******* ' **** ** ********* ** ***
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to FTS
    FTS:
    Cracked.com's language filter in their comments section is as bad as that (which doesn't make sense to me given there's plenty of swearing in the articles). The overall effect is that a great many ordinary words get half censored, which only serves to draw undue attention to the whole process.

    The worse problem is that Cracked's comments are about 80% spam anyway.

  • Whatever (unregistered) in reply to method1
    method1:
    Whatever:
    Thank you, method1, for finally explaining what clbuttic means. (I was just too lazy to search for it at home, and I SURE wasn't going to search from work for it.)

    You ARE joking, aren't you? I only posted a couple of equivalents(somewhat sarcastically) cos someone said they couldn't understand what they were originally.

    Sadly, no... I got all the other ones, and suddenly it all fell into place...

  • (cs) in reply to ted
    ted:
    Max:
    airdrik:
    So why are they checking the age of the password?
    What really gets me is that they check for a minimum age. Those other fields obviously are just using 0 where they should use some positive integer, but the minimum age makes no sense.

    Consider: Password must be at least (8) characters. --> Makes sense Password cannot repeat last (3) passwords. --> Annoying but understandable Password must be at least (90) days old. --> Wait, what?

    So if I successfully set my password I can't log in for 90 days? And the same for every time I change my password? Or can I still use the older password in the meantime?

    I've seen this before, but never for 90 days. It's usually 24 hours. So if you change your password, you can't change it again for 24 hours. It's fucking stupid.

    It's a perfectly reasonable measure for preventing DoS attacks. ;)

  • (cs) in reply to SonicLover
    Password: ****************
    the teacher's union has decided to hold onto the do***ent until a raise has been guaranteed
    The comment in the image is a hint to the password of the first image. So the password is "documentfailures"?
  • Nick (unregistered) in reply to frits

    Its not for preventing DoS attacks, its for preventing people from changing their password 4 times back to their original password.

  • (cs) in reply to Max
    Max:
    airdrik:
    So why are they checking the age of the password?
    What really gets me is that they check for a minimum age. Those other fields obviously are just using 0 where they should use some positive integer, but the minimum age makes no sense.

    Consider: Password must be at least (8) characters. --> Makes sense Password cannot repeat last (3) passwords. --> Annoying but understandable Password must be at least (90) days old. --> Wait, what?

    So if I successfully set my password I can't log in for 90 days? And the same for every time I change my password? Or can I still use the older password in the meantime?

    It's part of the retarded password policy guideline. This one I haven't seen any good justification... as well as:

    • Password must not repeat more than 2 letters more than 2 times (or something equally stupid)
    • Password must not have more than 3 letters in the same position as in the previous password (so if your password was zardoz321, nardifXd2 is not accepted)
    • Password must have uppercase, lowercase, numbers and symbols, at exactly 8 characters, and must not repeat any single key in said password.

    Which leads to Post-it security systems. Sheesh.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Total shih tzu.

  • What do you expect from a Agile company (unregistered)

    LOL looks like another failure of Agile. Yes, I know they are an Agile company. They spend more time preaching Agile around the office than they do learning how to program.

  • Outtascope (unregistered) in reply to Isuwen
    Isuwen:
    'cum' isn't even a dirty word.

    –preposition with; combined with; along with (usually used in combination): My garage-cum-workshop is well equipped.

    And what about indiscreet fat scholars? You know, those designated sumo cum loudly.

  • Alan (unregistered)

    I'm pretty sure "at least X days old" is just a poor wording of "not have been used by you as a password within the last X days". I think it's a common guideline on Windows domain controllers.

    The idea being that you don't simply alternate between a set of passwords if the policy requires you to pick a new password at a certain interval and instead pick a "fresh" one.

    The problems this causes should be obvious.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    My OTHER FUn CoKE! Rah!

  • The Corrector (unregistered) in reply to Ben
    Ben:
    Jon:
    So THAT'S where my date went. She's hiding in the drive.

    No, your date is attached to the end of my ****.

    FTFY

  • Basement Dad (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    I'm confused, why would you have a fruit in your hard drive?
    "Care for a date? How about Thursday?" Mel Brooks FTW!!!!111
  • erich (unregistered) in reply to Max

    You're required to have been using it somewhere else for 90 days. We don't want you getting all original and making up a new password... it's too likely that you'll forget it. :)

  • rgela (unregistered) in reply to alegr
    alegr:
    Date in the drive == getting BJ while driving?
    +1 pure win (as long as you don't crash). Too bad it's nearly impossible to get that anymore, with most cars having a large central console. Oh how I long for the days of a simple foam arm-rest that could fold back into the seat.

    CAPTCHA 'secundum' - when the first BJ-while-driving wasn't enough, and she gives you another one.

  • stu (unregistered) in reply to Coyne
    Coyne:
    These displays today are so puny. 33,792x19,206; pah!

    When are we going to get the the serious stuff? Something like 1,398,080x786,420?

    Oh you conservative retro geeks and your two dimensional displays.
  • Henning Makholm (unregistered)

    33792 is 1024+32768, which could be a hardware-induced single bit error. How 19206 comes about is harder to explain.

    Re do***ent: what evidence do we have that it is actually a clbuttic moderator and not just the poster himself trying to be funny?

  • (cs)

    The password is clearly from the future and is, therefore, negative X days old (failing the "must be at least 0 days old") test.

  • (cs) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    Matt Westwood:
    SoaperGEM:
    Somebody's going to have to explain what word do***ent represents. It's Friday so my weekly brain power has already been depleted.

    Oh, cum on!

    feel the noize!

    Well played!!

  • (cs)

    Once again, I must PLEAD... can we PUH-LEASE stop posting pictures of public displays where some evidence that the machine controlling the display is running Windows and/or IE?

    There was a time (March, 1987, I think) when it was somewhat humorous to discover that some electronic billboard or reservation display or whatever was <snicker> run by Windows.

    "Hey, look! That cash register has a BSOD! GUFFAW! I'm so clever for pointing out the intersection of an everyday object and a ubiquitous operating system."

    That. Time. Is. Over.

  • Som Ebody (unregistered) in reply to Henning Makholm
    33792 is 1024+32768, which could be a hardware-induced single bit error. How 19206 comes about is harder to explain.
    It's probably just a factor applied to the first number. So the system knows the width and the form factor and just calculates the heigth.

    Captcha: damnum. And you're too.

  • (cs) in reply to SQLDave
    SQLDave:
    Once again, I must PLEAD... can we PUH-LEASE stop posting pictures of public displays where some evidence that the machine controlling the display is running Windows and/or IE?

    I, for one, shall never tire of seeing pictures of Windows crashing /rebooting/BSODing when installed on inappropriate appliances

  • Henning Makholm (unregistered) in reply to Som Ebody
    Som Ebody:
    33792 is 1024+32768, which could be a hardware-induced single bit error. How 19206 comes about is harder to explain.
    It's probably just a factor applied to the first number. So the system knows the width and the form factor and just calculates the heigth.
    Yeah -- but where would a form factor of 33792:19206 = 512:291 ~ 1.76:1 come from? There's no widely used video mode with that ratio.

    16:9 = 33972:19008 is the closest common form factor, but 19008 is not 19206.

  • Grumpy (unregistered) in reply to noneemouse
    noneemouse:
    SonicLover:
    Okay, hold on... was my password 14 or 15 asterisks? Damn it, I can never remember. I knew I should have written it down before my session was interrupted.

    It only looks like asterisks to you because it's not your password.

    Classic bash. :-)

  • Michael (unregistered)

    Number four looks oddly similar.

  • Shishire (unregistered) in reply to Henning Makholm
    Henning Makholm:
    Som Ebody:
    33792 is 1024+32768, which could be a hardware-induced single bit error. How 19206 comes about is harder to explain.
    It's probably just a factor applied to the first number. So the system knows the width and the form factor and just calculates the heigth.
    Yeah -- but where would a form factor of 33792:19206 = 512:291 ~ 1.76:1 come from? There's no widely used video mode with that ratio.

    16:9 = 33972:19008 is the closest common form factor, but 19008 is not 19206.

    Rounding error? Integer Division?

  • Christopher (unregistered) in reply to MaindotC
    MaindotC:
    * ******* **** *** ******* ********* ** * ******* *'* **** ** ********* ** ***
  • Hidden Windshield (unregistered) in reply to Shishire
    Shishire:
    Henning Makholm:
    Som Ebody:
    33792 is 1024+32768, which could be a hardware-induced single bit error. How 19206 comes about is harder to explain.
    It's probably just a factor applied to the first number. So the system knows the width and the form factor and just calculates the heigth.
    Yeah -- but where would a form factor of 33792:19206 = 512:291 ~ 1.76:1 come from? There's no widely used video mode with that ratio.

    16:9 = 33972:19008 is the closest common form factor, but 19008 is not 19206.

    Rounding error? Integer Division?

    1024 = 0000010000000000 33792 = 1000010000000000

    768 = 0000001100000000 19206 = 0100101100000110

    Assuming that the monitor was trying to report an optimum resolution of 1024x768, it's possible that there's a short in the cable that's randomly flipping zeros to ones.

  • Xythar (unregistered)

    Oh dear, the VMs have become self aware. We're not far from virtual Skynet sending back virtual Terminators to virtually assassinate future leaders of the virtual resistance.

  • perthGooner (unregistered) in reply to operagost

    Yes I see what you did there - nice Noddy Holder reference

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to Mr Jolly
    Mr Jolly:
    With censor software like that I'm just glad I don't live in Scunthorpe.
    Regardless of censor software, surely?

    But thanks for the excuse to post this.

  • Sten (unregistered)

    Your new password is not older than 0 days :)

  • (cs) in reply to shadowman
    shadowman:
    Reminds me of a mmo golf game I used to play called shot online. Haven't played it in a long time so I don't if that ever got fixed but the chat had all sorts of clbuttic mistakes.

    It was so bad that even split between words stuff would get censored.

    You'd write: "I wish I thought about" and it would display as "I wi** * *hought about"

    Anarchy Online used to have the same problem:

    I wi** ** wouldn't censor "wish it".

  • (cs) in reply to method1
    method1:
    cwomancolate ~ 'ho'

    sfemale genitalsfuls ~ 'poon'

    Caucasian ~ 'cracker'

    cwomanpped ~ 'ho' again

    I don't think it was auto-translated. From what language do you think it was from then? Graham Crackers & Rice Krispies mean that its almost definitely US or Canadian english. Of course its a censor filter.

    Right, I missed a few letters there. The result is a good replacement for "pig Latin".

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to method1
    method1:
    java.lang.Chris:
    Whoever wrote that censor software must be a seriously stupid tw4t.

    How about this extract from websaz.ir/articles/showarticle.php?article=3632

    We twomanught we would share some of our favorites with you.

    Cranberry Coconut Bars

    womanw's that for convenience?

    If you are not fond of dried cranberries, consider subsbreastuting dates, raisins, or cwomanpped apricot pieces in this recipe. This cookie is best with a tall glbutt of milk.

    Cwomancolate Peanut Butter Drops

    1/2 tablesfemale genitals vanilla extract

    1. Let cool for several minutes and then drop sfemale genitalsfuls onto waxed paper. Let the cookies cool completely before removing them from the waxed paper.

    When thinking of no-bake cookies, don't forget the perennial favorites, Rice Krispie Treats and Frosted Graham Caucasians. We're buttuming everyone has the recipe for Rice Krispie Treats. Consider adding cwomancolate chips for a little pizzazz.

    To make Cwomancolate Rice Krispie Treats, melt 2/3 cup cwomancolate chips (for a recipe calling for six cups of cereal) with the marshmallows and butter

    For Frosted Graham Caucasians, simply pick your favorite frosting and sandwich that between two graham Caucasian squares

    Two thoughts immediately come to mind:

    1. Didn't it occur to someone to test their "language cleaning" software before deploying it? One would think that if they tried it on any document of reasonable length they would immediately have seen the problem. Or is this in the category of, "This program is so simple I don't need to waste my time testing it, I'll just deploy." I used to work with a guy like that ...

    2. I can figure out what the "translated" unacceptable words must have been. And I never heard of some of these words. Ah, the joys of leading a sheltered life. I have apparently been spared being insulted or grossed out many times because I didn't even know that people were being vulgar.

  • Brady Kelly (unregistered) in reply to by
    by:
    Chris asks, 'Are you OK, date-in-the-drive?"
    Maybe they're talking about an archive of photos of Irish Girl?

    I have one of those somewhere.

  • (cs) in reply to Jeremy
    Jeremy:
    Mr Jolly:
    With censor software like that I'm just glad I don't live in Scunthorpe.
    Regardless of censor software, surely?

    But thanks for the excuse to post this.

    Is... is that a link to download RAM?!

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Zolcos
    Zolcos:
    Jeremy:
    Mr Jolly:
    With censor software like that I'm just glad I don't live in Scunthorpe.
    Regardless of censor software, surely?

    But thanks for the excuse to post this.

    Is... is that a link to download RAM?!
    I saw that link and immediately thought to myself "Real Audio? What the hell is this, 1997?".

  • Shea (unregistered)

    The Windows log-on issue is a frightening one.

    For starters, anyone who has enabled password policies knows that at the domain-controller level, these are disabled by default.

    This means those fields, which reside in the registry (or are accessed through PolEdit.exe or some utility) are empty.

    At some point, someone decided to implement a policy - say 8 character minimum, and must be different than their last 3 passwords.

    Another administrator then came along and while trying to disable the policy, put a "0" in each of these fields... instead of emptying the field.

    The results of this are catastrophic - especially if applied to the root container. Even the domain administrator accounts will be locked out and unable to correct the change if the policy has been fully implemented (it takes time to propagate).

    The net outcome - take down the domain and revert to a previous version of the domain controller. That is, IF you have a backup (admins who would make this mistake rarely consider that they may need such a backup).

    Good news, everyone. Do what everyone else does when they screw up a Windows system: blame Bill Gates instead of themselves!

    -Shea

    Captcha: letatio. "I want a turkey, ham and letatio sandwich."

  • Jochem Kempe (unregistered)

    I thought I saw that one about the ***'s somewhere before, now I know where:

    http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Please-Write-This-Down.aspx

  • Saterkis (unregistered)

    Is that Peabody, Mbuttachussetts?

  • poijn (unregistered) in reply to SoaperGEM

    They try to indicate you are not thinking of sex enough... You might have missed it!

Leave a comment on “Important Reservation”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article