It’ll be less secure.

If they hash a subset, then those extra characters are literally irrelevant, since the hash algorithm will exclude them. Like if they just hashed the first 5 characters, then “passw” is the same as “password” and all those permutations. Hashing is safe because it’s one-way, but simple testing on the hashing algorithm would reveal certain characters don’t matter.

Protecting a smaller subset of characters in addition to the whole password is slightly better but still awful. Cracking the smaller subset will be significantly easier using rainbow tables, and literally gives a hint for the whole password, making a rainbow table attack significantly more efficient. Protecting the whole thing (with no easy hints) is way more secure.

It also adds nothing to keylogging, since it’s not even a new code, it’s part of the password.

There was a time where that level of security was acceptable, and it still could be ok on a closed system like an ATM, as the other reply to my comment pointed out, but this kind of protection on a standard computer is outdated and adds holes.

A secondary pin is a bit better but characters from the actual password (that you have to enter anyway) adds nothing to security from that kind of intrusion.

I have never heard of anything secure doing that. Assuming they have taken security steps, it would mean they recorded those characters in plaintext when you set your password, but that means that at least those characters aren’t secure, and a breach means some hacker has a great hint.

When the hashing occurs, it happens using the code you downloaded when you visit the site, so it’s your computer that does the hash, and then just the hash is sent onwards, so they can’t just pull the letters out of a properly secure password.

A secure company would use two-factor authentication to verify you above and beyond your password, anyway, since a compromised password somewhere else automatically compromises questions about your password.

It’s not in that same section, but I find pretty much everything but coffee and tea lists the amount near it.

Based on a Google search and the following link, no.

Google defined child porn using the term “sexually explicit conduct”, involving a minor, fair enough, gotta look deeper.

Cornell has a legal definition of sexually explicit conduct for us, which basically breaks it into 5 categories, actual sex, bestiality, masturbating, specific kinds of abuse, and displays of various body parts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=18-USC-821371409-1416780790

If this would be CP, it’d have to be some kind of abuse or the display, and I don’t think anything Nick aired would count as “masochistic” or “sadistic”. The body parts listed are also specific and don’t include feet.

So, in the US, it’s just really creepy, not CP. the fact we have to delve this deep to determine it’s not CP is pretty telling on its own, though.