Passwords That Should Never Be Used 239
The Original Yama writes "Strong passwords are your first step in securing your systems. If a password can be easily guessed or compromised using a simple dictionary attack, your systems will be vulnerable to hackers, worms, Trojans, and viruses. PCLinuxOnline provides an alphanumerical list of list of commonly used weak passwords that should never be used. If any of these passwords look hauntingly familiar and are being used, you should change the password immediately."
missed one... (Score:5, Funny)
thx1138
Re:missed one... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:missed one... (Score:2)
but back on topic. this list is interesting:
P PAPER, pass, PASS, Pass, passwd, Passwd, PASSWORD, password, Password, pat, patrick, PBX, pc, PCUSER, PDP11, PDP8, PFCUser, PHANTOM, phoenix, piranha, pmd, PO, PO8, poll, Polrty, POST, Posterie, postmast, POSTMASTER, postmaster, POWERCARTUSER, powerdown, PRIMARY, prime, primenet, primeos, primos, primos_cs, PRINT, PRINTER, PRIV, private, prost, PSEAdmin, public, PUBSUB, pw, pwd, pwp
nowhere in there is pussy. seriously when
Re:missed one... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure a thousand people will reply, but here: THX 1138 [imdb.com].
I've secured my Internet privacy (Score:5, Funny)
I keep it simple (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I keep it simple (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surprised that the classic "xyzzy" isn't in the list. Other words I would have expected to see "fred", "bofh", "windows", and "billgatescanbitemyshinymetalass".
Re:I keep it simple (Score:3, Funny)
It's eery how close that is to my own password!
Anonymous Coward NY Times passwd (Score:3, Funny)
Top 10 Passwords Not to be Used (Score:5, Funny)
10. iluvalqueda
9. idareyoutoguessthis
8. oldfattylumpkinwhosewisenoseledushere
7. *******
6. (my actual password)
5. cowboyneal
4. pencil
3. neo
2. secret
1. password
You forgot... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Top 10 Passwords Not to be Used (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Top 10 Passwords Not to be Used (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Top 10 Passwords Not to be Used (Score:2)
Re:Top 10 Passwords Not to be Used (Score:4, Funny)
Posting anonymously to not get myself in trouble... hi mike!
I worked with this engineer, call him mike, who had an account on a customer's machine. He was on vacation when the customer wanted a little help with that machine. The other engineer and I call mike to get his login and password to do some remote maintenance. Mike is reluctant to tell us the password. We think he's just being secretive, until he asks to be taken off speaker phone so he can tell us. His password: bigblackdonkeydick.
Sometimes password isn't so bad...
strong passwords = broken by design (Score:5, Insightful)
Any lame brained security system that depends on people choosing difficult to remember passwords and changing them every 3-6 months is broken by design.
Re:strong passwords = broken by design (Score:2, Interesting)
A mag-strip card IS a type of password. Depending on the institution that issued it, it's a rediculously long propietary password. It's a string of encoded bits. Nothing magical about it.
Furthermore, most people (and by most, i mean just about everyone), NEVER change either their PIN or their card, unless it's stolen. Is that type of system any more secure?
Re:strong passwords = broken by design (Score:5, Interesting)
Kinda... not really.
The important thing to keep in mind for any authentication system -- not just computers, but any system that requires people to identify themselves -- is that there are basically three ways to go about it:
Good security systems use at least two of these authentication classes: the ATM doesn't work unless you insert your card (something you have) and enter your PIN (something you know); when travelling abroad, customs agents will examine your passport (something you have), will cross-check your appearance against the passport's photo & description (something you are), and may ask probing questions about your travel plans (something you know).
Bad security systems rely exclusively on one of these elements. Basically all Internet security comes down to things you know, a/k/a passwords. From your point of view, an online purchase may seem to involve something you know (a password) and something you have (the numbers on your credit cards), but from the merchant's point of view they're just taking your word for it because they have no way to validate that the security token you're using is actually in your possession -- hence, credit card fraud. Likewise, I've voted in every election since I turned 18, and not once has an election worker asked for anything more than my name & address (something I claim I know) -- they never ask for an ID (something I have) or a fingerprint (something I am) etc. With this kind of scrutiny, it wouldn't be very hard for someone to spend all day voting in every precinct around. (I'm hopeful that electronic voting may actually fix this problem, but if as seems likely it introduces even more avenues for fraud then forget it.)
So, a password is essentially something you know, while an access card is something you have. There's a subtle but essential difference. If it was a string of numbers stamped on the card in an easily human readable way, then it could be considered as a form of password, but the fact that you need a machine to read it really enforces the point that it's something different. And that's why it's a good thing! A computer security system that relied on both traditional passwords as well as this kind of physical token would stand a much better chance of being robust than any system that used only passwords or tokens.
The problem is, almost nobody has a computer capable of reading such tokens. Aside from point of sale systems, almost no one has any use for card reading wedges, so building an authentication system around a requirement for card readers would be difficult to deploy broadly. Setting it as a general company policy might not be hard to do for most companies, if only because there you have a hope of installing the reader hardware for all users. Requiring a dual "know/have" or "know/are" system only for certain systems (access to sensitive areas, etc) would be prudent for any business to implement, but going from there to building a business of providing such systems to the general public would be much harder as long as the infrastructure doesn't exist -- that is, as long as Dell isn't shipping access card readers with every machine they sell.
So: something you know, something you have, something you area. Keep these in mind and the analysis of secure authentication mechanisms gets much clearer.
US Army does this (Score:2, Informative)
The US Army (and the rest of the military) is in fact going to this type of approach. Every soldier, for an ID card, is issued a card with a smart chip. This card, among other uses, is inserted into a smart card reader that is hooked up to every Army AIS (around here at least) to log on. The old user/pass method may also be used to log on, but I'm not sure how long that will last.
Brief overview may be found here: army.carlisle.mil [army.mil]
Re:strong passwords = broken by design (Score:3, Interesting)
It's OK when the electronic security system is just an interface to a physical lock, like an electronic gate control. You seldom/never have i
Re:Remember Demolition Man (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are some points to ponder regarding something you "are":
And here are some points regarding something you can have - a smart card:
What do these points mean? Biometric information can be copied at many levels, and presented as "real" data at many points in the security perimeter. A fake fingerprint can be made for under $20 and almost no skill is required. Mallory can hold up a photo in front of an unattended camera to convince a system that Alice is at the reader. A "fake" retinal scanner could be placed in front of a "real" retinal scanner at the bank's Eye-ATM machine ('retinal skimming' just sounds evil.) Or, the thumbprint reader at the Bada Bing's cash register might actually be a thumbprint/DNA recorder manned by Tony Soprano. You, the biometric holder, have no way of validating every reader. And in every case, a compromised biometric is of negative value to the owner. If your thumbprint data is stolen, copies of it can be made forever and you can never get it back. Your own thumbprint is now a liability, not an asset.
In contrast, a smart card does not divulge its secrets willingly. Smart cards do not require trust in the card reader nor in the merchant. The merchant issues a challenge to the card, collects the response, and ships both the challenge and response to the bank. The bank records the challenge, validates that the challenge was never authorized before, and then validates that the response matched the challenge according to the secret rules the bank placed inside the card at the time of issuance. If a card is lost, the bank marks it lost/stolen and never authorizes it again. If a duplicate challenge is made, the merchant presenting the duplicate can be immediately suspected of fraud.
A smart card is good security, but poor authentication. But a biometric datum is poor security, and not necessarily good authentication.
Re:strong passwords = broken by design (Score:2)
Yes, of course it is. It is not however a password that a human has to remember (besides keeping it in their pocket or whatever). Any security system that relies on humans behaving un an unhumanlike way (remembering numberous frequently changing complicated passwords) is inherently broken. People just won't do it with any
Password rules at IBM Watson Research (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Password rules at IBM Watson Research (Score:3, Funny)
Re:strong passwords = broken by design (Score:3, Insightful)
> 4 digit pin & a magnetic card. If it's enough to
> protect their money...
But it isn't.
This one real cool password I had... (Score:3, Funny)
There was this obscure OS that no one had ever heard of... man it was cool... it was like unix on the pc... and this guy that developed it... this guy from scandanavia. You see it was really clever because it was a play on his actual name, and easy to remember.
Then... 1998 came. Its been downhill from there. I wouldnt even trust it to a hotmail account now.
Re:This one real cool password I had... (Score:2)
huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Single character passwords? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
The site lists 7061992 and 19920706 among the common numeric passwords.
That can't be a coincidence, can it? What happened on July 6, 1992 that was of such significance?
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Explained [defaultpassword.com]
Hmm, not really trolling... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to suggest something here that is perhaps a little controversial. Perhaps, if password zealots spent less time complaining about passwords and spent more time protecting machines from this sort of attack (w/o making an easy path to a DOS attack) this wouldn't be an issue. Imagine this: Passwords are never transfered as plain text. Any systematic attempt at guessing a password is prevented before the attacker gains access. Users make mistakes a few times, even for the most simple passwords, one must sample tens of passwords to break in. Systematic attempts are predictable, just like trolls on slashdot are (generally) identifiable (remember those page lengthening posts?) and spam is filterable.
In my not so humble opinion, password guessing attacks are an administrator problem, not a user problem. And the administrators seem more interested in pestering users than actually developing systems to prevent this type of attack.
-Sean
Re:Hmm, not really trolling... (Score:2)
I know that dictionary attacks would be simpler to solve than my example, by why not try to remove the SOURCE of the problem - instead of trying to solve the problems people lack of knowledge generate?
IMO BOTH measures should be used - it is a problem of BOTH lazy(stupid) users and lazy(stupid) sysadmins.
Universal Passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, they enforce basic password etiquette (minimum length, non-alpha character requirement, etc...), which helps the situation somewhat (aside from the office biddies who write them on post-it notes on their CRTs), but the situation is far from secure.
Students use their webmail (Exchange... I won't even get into that one...) and register for classes (telnet), and generally aren't careful with their passwords. I couldn't tell you how many times I've sat down at a public terminal to find someone else's account all set up for me to exploit. And since the password is universal, I can do anything I want.
Myself, I use a different password for everything I connect to, and thus don't have to worry about being wholly compromised in an instant. Then again, I'm a geek, so I'm not exactly the norm.
Does anyone else see this push toward universal logins/passwords as a problem?
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, no? Most "password etiquette" schemes are a complete crock. Generally all they do is reduce the key space and therefore make the passwords easier to brute force attack.
You must have a password of at least 6 characters? Well, there goes everything 5 characters and less - don't have to check those.
Hmm, and while we're at it, most people are going to have a password between 6 and 9 characters, don't bother trying anything else until the second pass.
You have to have at least one non-alpha, well - I can reduce my attack to constrain my guesses around that requirement - just reduced the number of attempts necessary by 24%.
Any other rules you want to add to make attacking the password easier?
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:3, Informative)
If you allow upper and lowercase characters, there are 387659012 combinations that are 5 characters and shorter, and 20158268676 that are 6 c
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming we take the example of the guy who had the 5 byte password that takes 18 days to crack, 1.9% still saves you 8 hours. Not an unuseful amount of time.
It's the daft "must include an non-alpha" and "must start with an alpha (or worse, a capital)" and other brain dead, crack smoking, glue sniffing password "rules" that are the real killers
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2, Interesting)
One of my credit cards (which I have since cancelled) demanded that the 4-digit PIN not start with zero or one.
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this make any sense?
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that rules that restrict the keyspace *more* than they force users to increase entropy are pointless or even harmful. "Must start with a capital" is obviously in this category. "Must include some sign that is not a letter" is probably not, because, again, the rule ex
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:5, Interesting)
It is true, for example that excluding 5-and-under passwords reduces the keyspace. But that is still a win if that part of the keyspace was overpopulated.
Put differently, if everyone has passwords 8 characters or less, choosen from a set of 64 characters (I realise there's more, but some are much more used than others, so the effective strength of a password choosen by a user is seldom more than 6bit/char)
Problem is, users do NOT typically choose passwords anywhere close to randomly. A more typical scenario is that 10% of all the users choose passwords 5 characters or less.
In that case, searching the 5-or-less part of the keyspace is 26000 times more likely to net you a working password than choosing a random part of the keyspace to search.
In practice, you can brute-force the 30-bit 5-and-under keyspace in minutes, and you'll have passwords for 10% of the user-accounts, allthough you only searched less than one thousandth of one percent of the keyspace.
THAT is why requiring users to have passwords over a minimum length does not, as you claim, harm security. (instead it helps quite a bit)
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Sir, you are a savant.
Thank you for enlightening me to a definition of "minus" that I was not aware of.
If you were thinking clearly, you would start your attack with a dictionary that you could prune based on known password rules.
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2, Funny)
98814936052800 is the number of all passwords with lengths from six to nine with at least one number.
321272406 is the number of all passwords with lengths from one to six, as would be picked by unregulated users.
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Because you don't have to check anything with 5 or less, you reduce the key space to 98,814,936,052,800 combinations, the number you give.
This is less work. Not much, granted, but it's still less. Anything that reduces the key space only needs to be coded into the cracking routines once to achieve that reduction in work every time.
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Here's the way I looked at it. If you allow 5 characters or less, you get n^1 + n^2 + n^3 + n^4 + n^5 possible passwords, where n = number of valid characters. This recurses out to n(1 + n(1 + n(1 + n(1 + n)))). For example, let's say we allow lower-case letters and numbers (n = 36). This means there are 62,193,780 possible passwords of 5 characters or less. Now, lets say you have a limit of 6 characters, and all of your users are lazy and use the minimum. This
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Your initial attack is a dictionary attack. You eliminate passwords from the dictionary that do not meet the rules for the password you are trying to break. This means that IF the dictionary attack was going to succeed, you now succeed sooner.
If the dictionary attack fails, you then do the brute force attack which simply searches the full key space, which has been reduced by the constraints on the password.
Software enforced password constraints cause low hanging fruit to hang lower.
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Let's assume you have two passwords, X and Y. X and Y both meet some arbitary password constraints.
You also have a dictionary, D1 of 1000 entries.
Let's further assume that X is in the dictionary and Y isn't.
Now, remove all entries from the dictionary that do not meet the password constraints in use giving dictionary D2.
To search the dictionary for X will now take 83% of the time and you WILL find it. The p
Re:Universal Passwords (Score:2)
Guess I should change my password (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, I use the variant spelling.
Shift a key over and throw in some numbers... (Score:2)
Re: Short vs. long passwords (Score:2)
Why not use the entire sentence?
It's much less susceptible to brute-force attack, especially if you deliberately misspell some of the words.
For example, "moh,Larry,Curly.3stuges" seems like it would be harder for a password-cracking program to guess than "mLC.3s".
(If I were to write a password cracker, I would have it test for abbreviations of words as well as words, so the abbreviation of a phrase would never be more secure than the phrase itself
Some pretty complex ones are there too... (Score:3, Informative)
A52896nG93096a
but also:
dn_04rjc
ksdjfg934t
sldkj754
----
I was going to ask why how this list was compiled,
but since I got really interested I happened to
google these and found the following:
This seems to indicate [defaultpassword.com] that ksdjfg934t is a default
password for a SuperMicro PC BIOS Console.
And from the same site: Micronics has a PC-BIOS
which uses dn_04rjc as the default password as
does Micron for the password sldkj754.
I want to know how often these passwords are used
for services that a open to the internet, or even
to the local network. I would imagine that these
bios passwords are only able to be entered
locally? If so why does that merit a place on this
"Passwords that should NEVER be used!" list...
apart from the fact that now this list will be
used in lame dictionary attacks....
Re:Some pretty complex ones are there too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Favorites from the Real World (Score:3, Funny)
Mr.Root
logout
friend
friend and enter
open sesame
open tahini
open the door HAL
admit1
lemmeIN
hey,babe
what'syoursign?
Since I'm a little slow, the last two had me puzzled. It was explained to me that they were "pass words," i.e., words used in making passes.
Weed the idiots out... (Score:2)
Wow, I'm suprised how few there are on that list. I would have thought things like city/state names, zip codes, and movie/band names would be more common.
John the Ripper (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can tell, John runs a dictionary-based attack against your master.passwd file, then runs the dictionary with various shifts in capitalization, then runs the dictionary again with an assortment of numeric digits inserted into its guesses.
Finally John just runs a brute-force attack, generating passwords with successively longer and longer lengths until it lucks out.
In my case John finally did luck out, finding one of my passwords after 18 days of crunching numbers. This particular account had a relatively weak password -- though no dictionary attack would have found it, it was still only five bytes long. That's a wakeup call for me. I've been using shorter passwords for years, thinking that by avoiding common words I was safe. But I can see that they're breakable now.
It's one thing for someone to preach that you should really have longer passwords; it's quite another to see it for yourself. If your passwords are easy to guess, or are variants of dictionary words, or can be generated easily by brute force -- there are widely available tools that can give the keys to the city to any lowlife that wants into your machine.
Run one of the password crackers on your own system today, and become enlightened! And don't be comforted by the 18 days it took to crack my easy five-character password on a 300MHz Celeron notebook: there's also a distributed version [ktulu.com.ar] of John the Ripper that divides up the work of cracking your password file among many computers.
The more I learn about security, and the tighter I make my systems, the more afraid I am. If you aren't afraid, you are either very very good at what you do -- and I humbly bow before you -- or you haven't much of a clue.
I'm safe! (Score:3, Funny)
Woohoo! My trusty old 1234567890 didn't make the list!
Re:I'm safe! (Score:2)
An honest look at password creation (Score:5, Funny)
User: Tim
Password: NEWUSER
YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD EVERY 30 DAYS
PASSWORD MUST HAVE AT LEAST 6 ALPHA AND 2 NUMERIC/OTHER CHARACTERS
New Password: password
PASSWORD MUST HAVE AT LEAST 6 ALPHA AND 2 NUMERIC/OTHER CHARACTERS
New Password: password01
OK
(February)
User: Tim
Password: password01
YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD EVERY 30 DAYS
PASSWORD MUST HAVE AT LEAST 6 ALPHA AND 2 NUMERIC/OTHER CHARACTERS
New Password: password01
THIS PASSWORD HAS BEEN USED RECENTLY
YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD EVERY 30 DAYS
PASSWORD MUST HAVE AT LEAST 6 ALPHA AND 2 NUMERIC/OTHER CHARACTERS
New Password: password02
OK
(March)
User: Tim
Password: password02
YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD EVERY 30 DAYS
PASSWORD MUST HAVE AT LEAST 6 ALPHA AND 2 NUMERIC/OTHER CHARACTERS
New Password: password03
OK
repeat ad nauseum
Re:An honest look at password creation (Score:5, Funny)
Password: i dont have one
password is incorrect
Login: yes
Password: incorrect
Re:An honest look at password creation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:An honest look at password creation (Score:2)
Disappointed ... (Score:2)
It was especially disappointed that the numeric section didn't include 17 or 42. Or 1742, for that matter. Where are they getting their lists.
And "mrroot" wasn't there, either. (A shout-out to my old Project Athena cohort.
Only an idiot (Score:2, Funny)
Where on earth did they get this list? (Score:2)
Honestly, this is filler as far as content quality goes.
How are my passwords? (Score:3, Funny)
fizzlebop... OK
coodleschmidt... OK
sneedalbiz... OK
testripithia... OK
crumblehip... OK
skazeltank... OK
OK, all my passwords are safe. No one will ever guess 'em.
.
.
Crud!
Use and algorithm to generate your password (Score:2, Interesting)
pick as day from every month of the year which has some significance and is easy to remember. This date remains the same year after year, which I think is sufficient variability because you are going to do more with the date.
arrange the date and the current year in numerical format such as MMDDYYYY or YYYY-MM-DD
use date seperator . / or - as their mathematical operators, combine different operators be creative e.g. YYYY.MM-DD or DD/MM-YYYY or sim
This is perfect... (Score:2)
That's nothing (Score:2)
It was APPLE2.
Excellent, I'm not on the list... (Score:2)
REALLY bad password (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:REALLY bad password (Score:2)
I used to routinely embed control characters in my passwords (tab, ctrl-C, ctrl-G, ctrl-M, whatever) but then discovered that not all programs performed "raw" input the same way. There's nothing quite so annoying as having your system login program crash (and so deny you access to a system) as you're entering your password, because the program couldn't deal with embedd
Re:Yeouch... [ot] (Score:4, Informative)
But if you're smart, you'd know that storing a password in plaintext is insecure (in case your database is compromised). You should be using encryption. Something like MD5 or SHA would do the trick.
If you take the input string, then MD5sum it and store/compare THAT in the database, you should be fine.
Of course, you should still check all of your other input for any other queries you do, but I'll save that as an exercise for the reader.
PHBs seriously love "password" (Score:3, Insightful)
Pencil (Score:2)
Short passwords?? (Score:2, Funny)
Honey Pot Passwords? (Score:4, Interesting)
For those unfamiliar, the idea behind a honeypot password is either
Re:Honey Pot Passwords? (Score:2)
Re:Honey Pot Passwords? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because it's a simple way of locking out other people of their accounts.
I could go over to a colleagues PC and deliberately enter the wrong password five times when she's away to lunch.
When she comes back she finds her account has been disabled, and she's locked out until the sysadmin resets it.
At home this might not be a problem, but allowing people to lockout a remote worker from their VPN connection when they're working on something important isn't a good idea.
I log failed passwords on our machines s
Re:Honey Pot Passwords? (Score:2)
Things get trickier when you have a cluster of machines using a distributed authentication service. E.g., you have a bunch of machines using pam_ldap, so all of them are authenticating against a singl
Whew! (Score:2)
When I was working in IT (Score:4, Informative)
It's scary how many people think the name of their child makes a great password.
Re:When I was working in IT (Score:2)
Uncanny! (Score:2, Funny)
12345?! That's incredible! That's the same combination I use on my luggage!
Things To Never Use (Score:3, Funny)
MEMORANDUM
From: Information Services
To: All personell
Re: Secure computing practices
The following, found during a routine review of our authentication system, are insecure and should never be used:
Avoid anything on this list. Any personell using anything on this list will be required to attend a mandatory fnord security training class, and may possibly face reprimands for repeat offenses.
Public Key Authentication (Score:2)
Why are we still using passwords for everything? I must sign up for 2 or 3 new websites a week. I've been using the Internet for 32 years now. So that means I've signed up for just over 8388640 passwords.
Would someone please write a browser plugin that will enable public/private key authentication using my ssh agent [greenend.org.uk]
. Then I just need to tell them my public key.
ADV: Get your own 'no password required' virtual private server [rimuhosting.com]
no qwerty? (Score:2, Funny)
notobvious (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, it was just the password to login to the modem server, every customer had an additional real password to actually access the UUCP box behind it.
It's useless (Score:2, Insightful)
Spaceballs (Score:3, Funny)
Outdated list (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, well, now I've got to change all of my root passwords from youwontguessme to p^$$w0rd. Hey, at least it's not on the list.
'Leet speak and letter/number substitution (Score:4, Informative)
I then found out somebody wrote a password cracker that uses those rules... out went that idea!
I have always suggested the following:
Our current sa password to most of our databases is !myday (not my day).
--D
Re:That's the same combo on my luggage! (Score:2)
Must be. On any stupidity scale, I'd rank using an obvious combo for an atmosphere shield that protects the whole planet a lot higher than using the same combon on luggage!
Re:Fundmental Numbers (Score:2)
Needless to say, that was going a bit overboard.