Among the more security savvy community (very much including security.stackexchange) there is an ongoing discussion about the strength of different password policies. Examples include the Tr0ub4d0r&3
vs correct horse battery staple
, Bruce Schneiers scheme, the BBC scheme, among others.
These different approaches have all been examined in-depth, down to entropy-level calculations, how easy certain passwords are to remember, etc. -- and I think we can all agree on the qualities good passwords need.
Also, we all know the stories of password
, love
, 123456
, querty
and all the other useless phrases that the average Joe sometimes relies upon and that appear every time a large collection of passwords gets leaked somewhere.
But have there actually been known cases where people invested some thought/effort in picking passwords which in hindsight proved to be too weak? I sometimes get the feel that if an organization/person is aware of the password issue, and has even a basic understanding of security principles, they are already 99.9% safe on that front.
To reformulate the question:
How often has password strength been an actual security problem in a professional context?
With 'professional context' I explicitly mean a context where some informed decision was undertaken to choose decent passwords.
E.g. somebody picked a non-trivial password (maybe
Tr0ub4d0r&3
-style), and it was actually cracked and exploited in a context where a different scheme would have proven more resilient (and where the reason for the incident was not some other failing part of the security chain).