[Feature Request] - Add uppercase and number option to 'Memorable Password' generator

Ind3X

Hopefully the thread title sums up the request, but to elaborate slightly:

It would be useful to have 'Include uppercase character' and 'include number' options in the memorable password generator. Often the password requirements on websites are not met when using this generator, as it only includes lowercase characters and no digits (although special characters are covered by the word separators). I know the random password generator includes these characters, but it is not ideal if you would like to use a memorable password and still meet a sites password requirements.

Please consider adding this option - even a simple checkbox for each option would probably suffice; I don't think I've ever come across a site that requires more than one of each of these character types, so some logic to add an uppercase character and number to the start or end of any of the generated words, would still make them memorable, I think. Having to do this manually in these situations can be a pain. I think the UX for this could be improved.

Thanks

---

1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Sync Type: Not Provided

Ben

Thanks for the request @Ind3X. We're evaluating how to best expose the power of the password generator without overwhelming folks with a multitude of options. :+1:

Ben

jpgoldberg

Hi @Ind3X!

We've actually been experimenting with that in 1Password X, where one of the words will be capitalized and you can chose to have randomly chosen digits as the separators. At the moment the situation for what particular sorts of strong password generator features are exposed in which clients is in flux (we are trying to have a common code base for this, but the integration in all platforms has gone slower than we'd hoped.)

Ind3X

@jpgoldberg thanks for the info, it's great to hear that the team have this in mind and something is in the pipeline 👍🏼.

If you plan on having random digits a separators, don't forget there will still be a need for at least 1 special character, as at least one each of lowercase, uppercase, number and special character, is often the requirement for passwords on many sites.

Something like the following would be more than adequate for meeting the password requirements on most sites and still 'memorable', whilst not straying too far from what people are already used to with this generator - people don't like change eh!

avionic2-penury-tensile-Sunup

(and no, that isn't one of my passwords 😄)

AGAlumB

@Ind3X: It really, really varies heavily from one site to another, so I don't think it's safe at all to say that's "necessary". But it is one of many things we're evaluating based on testing and feedback. As mentioned multiple times above, if there are specific cases where you're having trouble generating a password that's accepted, please give us the URLs so we can investigate. :)

Ind3X

@brenty ; Excuse me? What kind of a reply is that?

1. You've quoted me as mentioning something as being "necessary", I've never used that word once - You might want to double check 😉.
2. I provided a feature request based on my own experience of using a specific function in an Agilebits application; MY experience! I'm old(ish) now, and in my experience of using computers and logins for the last 25 years, is that they (GENERALLY - Where 'more complex' password enforcements are specified, and required)... GENERALLY, ask for at least 1 lowercase, 1 uppercase, 1 number and 1 special character, or some mix thereof. I don't recall ever being asked for at least 2, 3 or 4 of each of these character types in all those years (but then again, I don't work for the CIA, MI5, the NSA, Kingsmen or the Illuminati, so maybe I'm not important enough). I just politely requested that agilebits consider adding a couple of options to better facilitate these password complexity requirements in their 'memorable password generator', that 'some' websites require.

If feels as though you have taken my response to @jpgoldberg as a personal attack on you, or Agilebits. Frankly, I found your reply a little rude, and uncalled for.

Also, "As mentioned multiple times above, if there are specific cases where you're having trouble generating a password that's accepted, please give us the URLs so we can investigate": WHAT? I think you may be responding to a different thread? I think tis time you took some holiday!

The clue is in the thread title "[Feature request]" - A polite one at that, which is more than I can say for your reply (and now mine!)

AGAlumB

Excuse me? What kind of a reply is that? You've quoted me as mentioning something as being "necessary", I've never used that word once - You might want to double check 😉.

@Ind3X: I didn't quote you. I put quotes around "necessary" because it's a different grammatical form of the word. This is a quote:

there will still be a need for at least 1 special character, as at least one each of lowercase, uppercase, number and special character, is often the requirement for passwords on many sites.

I was referring to that.

I provided a feature request based on my own experience of using a specific function in an Agilebits application; MY experience! I'm old(ish) now, and in my experience of using computers and logins for the last 25 years, is that they (GENERALLY - Where 'more complex' password enforcements are specified, and required)... GENERALLY, ask for at least 1 lowercase, 1 uppercase, 1 number and 1 special character, or some mix thereof. I don't recall ever being asked for at least 2, 3 or 4 of each of these character types in all those years (but then again, I don't work for the CIA, MI5, the NSA, Kingsmen or the Illuminati, so maybe I'm not important enough). I just politely requested that agilebits consider adding a couple of options to better facilitate these password complexity requirements in their 'memorable password generator', that 'some' websites require.

That's why I asked for specifics, as that's something we can develop and test for. This is my full comment to you, for context:

It really, really varies heavily from one site to another, so I don't think it's safe at all to say that's "necessary". But it is one of many things we're evaluating based on testing and feedback. As mentioned multiple times above, if there are specific cases where you're having trouble generating a password that's accepted, please give us the URLs so we can investigate. :)

I was sincere in that.

If feels as though you have taken my response to @jpgoldberg as a personal attack on you, or Agilebits. Frankly, I found your reply a little rude, and uncalled for. The clue is in the thread title "[Feature request]" - A polite one at that, which is more than I can say for your reply (and now mine!)

It certainly sounds like you've taken something personally. I don't understand why, but I'm sorry if something I said offended you. Nevertheless, perceived rudeness does not give you license to be rude. Take care.

jpgoldberg

@Ind3X points out that

If you plan on having random digits a separators, don't forget there will still be a need for at least 1 special character, as at least one each of lowercase, uppercase, number and special character, is often the requirement for passwords on many sites.

As it happens, I was working on this for the underlying engine over the weekend. And while it is still pending review,

Here is what they can look like (three words, one of them capitalized, digits and symbols required used as separator)

$ for i in {1..5}; do ./opgen words -capitalize=one -separator=digitSymbol -size=3; done
gunboat@elderly5Glaucous
Opulent8peak@afar
Mat@babushka2bestir
Mounting8latex-risque
Lexica2seeming*unstop

That gives you 50.98 bits

or here are some examples with the same settings but with four syllables (a whopping 66.72 bits)

$ for i in {1..5}; do opgen words --list syllables --capitalize=one --separator digitSymbol; done
dwok!zeeg0Kron*noth
Femp1kusm7clan*kasm
faud7noor8lux*Knuh
rhoy7Ghel@skim6yix
Spib0kail_mupt*zo

So while the combination of digit and symbol separators in such a way to require at least one of each is a work in progress, our underlying generator is quite powerful.