🚀 go-pugleaf

Vince Manis brought this up on RISKS a few years back.  At the time he had a 
machine which had a three digit, user-selectable code.  One of the responses
gave a numeric string which contained all possible combinations of three
digits: the poster estimated, based upon the length of time you had to enter
the code, that at most two calls would be necessary to "hack/crack" the
machine.

My own machine has a four digit, factory set code.  It is rendered slightly
more secure by the fact that the company makes several models, not all of
which have remote access, but which all sound identical.

One machine I bought for a company I was contracting for had a single digit
security code.  My daughter's machine is even worse: it has a three digit
code, but any of the three digits, repeated three times, is valid for access!
 
==============
Vancouver      ROBERTS@decus.ca         | "If you do buy a
Institute for  Robert_Slade@sfu.ca      |  computer, don't
Research into  rslade@cue.bc.ca         |  turn it on."
User           p1@CyberStore.ca         | Richards' 2nd Law
Security       Canada V7K 2G6           | of Data Security