I've been looking for ways to improve security and security awareness for both internal and external clients and I happened upon the idea of generating a one-time, random "password suggestion" on the registration and password-change screens, similar to the following:

Password Suggestion

Assuming that:

  • The password is generated by indexing all 5-8 letter words in a Scrabble dictionary (about 70,000 words net total) and using a crypto RNG service to choose random indexes;
  • The page is viewed over an SSL connection;
  • The password is a nonce, i.e. the server doesn't actually save it anywhere;
  • Users are not actually assigned this password - they can still create their own, for example if they're sitting at a public terminal.

Is this a good idea or a bad one? I personally like the idea but I'm concerned that my enthusiasm and optimism as a developer might be overshadowing some unintended negative side-effects of a scheme like this.

Should I go ahead with this? Are there ways that it could be improved and/or other things I need to look out for?

  • 2
    This is related to this discussion on short complex passwords or long dictionary passphrases. Although it was initiated by a web comic it has some valuable information. Commented Sep 25, 2011 at 16:30
  • @HendrikBrummermann: Yes, it's that kind of passphrase, although I'm using a full dictionary (64 vs. 44 bits of entropy for 4 words, which is markedly better than even a completely random 10-character password of charset size 72). Pretty sure the passwords have good enough complexity, more concerned about possible problems with the method of generating them, unanticipated user reactions, weak links in the chain, that sort of thing.
    – Aaronaught
    Commented Sep 25, 2011 at 17:00

2 Answers 2


For security, this is very good. You're recommending about 64 bits of entropy in the password, which is far more than 99.9999% users will come up on their own. And not storing the plaintext password is obviously good for security.

For usability, this is mostly ok, but there's a big hole: a lot of users will use that password, neglect to write it down anywhere, and promptly forget it. Copy, paste, forget. So you'll have to use your password reset procedure often, which means it'll have to be lightweight, which likely means it'll be pretty insecure.

  • I suppose my naïve hope is that users who know they aren't able/willing to memorize it will just use their own. Still, even if they don't, that might still be a good thing if it means they don't use their "master password" to register with us. Fortunately for us, we can use the exact same information for registration and reset (information on a physical bill, no security question BS), so it's actually not that big a deal for us, it's just an inconvenience to the user.
    – Aaronaught
    Commented Sep 25, 2011 at 18:13

The use of a phrase instead of a single word is a good idea.

However, I find it bad security practice to, as a user, use a password that someone proposes I use. I wouldn't be comfortable with a system that does that. Also, if I were designing a system, I wouldn't want it to educate its users to use passwords proposed by others. A bit paranoia maybe, but "security hygene" is bad enough as it is...

I'd rather have the system propose an example, and forbid the user to use the example.

  • 3
    While I agree with the general sentiment, there is no security problem with having the server select the password that I will use. The problem here is one of memorization. I'm unconvinced about not educating users to use passwords proposed by others (yes, the subtlety that this is a problem except if it's the server that's picking the password is not one that users will cotton on to). If left to their own devices, many users will pick either password123 or their girlfriend's name, so proposing a password is a step up. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 18:54
  • 1
    Interesting points but I'm not sure I understand the basis for them. Why would this make you uncomfortable? And why wouldn't you want a system to educate its users as such?
    – Aaronaught
    Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 20:23
  • @Aaronaught I believe chris is correct. More important than a single mechanism is user education for the most general case. The most general case being: making the base of your security a secret that someone/something else gives you through a web page. There is no way for an average user to discriminate between a good secret delivered in a web page versus a bad secret delivered in a web page. For phishing etc. we want the user to distrust the web page/e-mail and fall back to a more secure channel.
    – this.josh
    Commented Sep 27, 2011 at 1:07
  • @this.josh: I'm still not following. What does phishing have to do with a password chosen upon registration? Let's say that this did somehow manage to convince users to register with whatever weak password is given to them; is that worse than having them choose their own weak password for that site - or worse, the same weak password for all sites they use? Furthermore, isn't this already exactly what happens when a user resets his/her password, but without the insecure e-mail channel?
    – Aaronaught
    Commented Sep 27, 2011 at 1:31
  • @Aaronaught the idea is that you don't want to teach users in general to let others decide their passwords for them.
    – chris
    Commented Sep 27, 2011 at 7:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .