Skip to tool
ecech.
🌐 Network & IP

Strong Password Generator with Entropy Readout

Generated with your browser's cryptographic RNG, scored in bits of entropy rather than a vague coloured bar, with crack-time estimates for four attacker budgets.

Entropy

Estimated time to crack offline

Advertisement

How the calculation works

Random string bits = L × log₂(P) L = length    P = pool size 20 chars from 94 symbols = 131 bits Passphrase bits = W × log₂(N) W = words    N = word list size 6 words from 585 = 55 bits Entropy measures the generator, not the string. A password you invented has far less than this formula suggests.

How to Use This Tool

Password strength meters that show a coloured bar are measuring the wrong thing. They inspect the password you typed and guess how hard it looks. What actually determines security is how many equally likely passwords the process could have produced — and that is a number you can calculate exactly, provided the generator is genuinely random. This tool generates from your browser's cryptographic random source and reports that number in bits.

Random string mode

Set a length and choose which character classes to include. The entropy figure updates immediately using bits = length × log₂(pool size). Every character added at a 94-symbol pool is worth about 6.55 bits, which is why length beats complexity: going from 12 to 16 characters adds far more security than adding one symbol to a 12-character password.

Two options are worth understanding. No 0/O, 1/l/I removes visually ambiguous characters, which is genuinely useful for anything a human will read off a screen and type elsewhere. It costs a small amount of entropy, and the readout accounts for it. No repeats forbids the same character appearing twice; it feels safer and is in fact very slightly weaker, because it removes possibilities from the space. The tool calculates the reduced entropy honestly rather than pretending otherwise.

Passphrase mode

Passphrases trade character density for memorability. The word list here holds 585 curated, easily typed words, so each word contributes about 9.2 bits. Six words gives roughly 55 bits and seven gives about 64 — strong enough for most accounts and vastly easier to type on a phone or a games console than a 20-character symbol soup. The exact figure is computed from the real list length rather than a rounded claim, so the readout moves as you add words.

Add words rather than adding punctuation. Each extra word is worth another 9.2 bits, while capitalising the first letter of every word is worth almost nothing, because an attacker assumes that pattern before they assume anything else.

Reading the crack times

The four estimates assume an offline attack: the attacker has stolen a password database and is guessing at full speed against the hashes. They range from a single high-end GPU to a well-funded operation running purpose-built hardware. Online attacks against a live login form are thousands of times slower because of network latency and rate limiting, so if a password survives the offline column it is comfortable everywhere else.

The rough working thresholds: below 50 bits is weak for anything that matters; 60–70 bits is reasonable for an ordinary account behind rate limiting; 80 bits and above is appropriate for a password manager master password, a disk encryption key, or anything whose compromise cascades. Above about 120 bits the difference stops mattering, because nobody is brute-forcing that in this universe.

Where the randomness comes from

Every value is drawn from crypto.getRandomValues(), the browser's cryptographically secure generator, using rejection sampling to avoid the modulo bias that a naive implementation introduces. No password is transmitted, logged or stored, and reloading the page leaves no trace of what was generated.

Advertisement

Frequently Asked Questions

What is entropy and why measure passwords in bits?
Entropy counts how many equally likely outcomes the generator could have produced, expressed as a power of two. Sixty bits means roughly a billion billion possibilities. It is the only honest measure of strength because it describes the process rather than guessing at the result, and it lets you compare a passphrase and a random string on the same scale.
How many bits do I actually need?
For an ordinary account protected by rate limiting, 60 to 70 bits is comfortable. For a password manager master password, disk encryption or anything whose compromise unlocks other things, aim for 80 or more. Below 50 bits is weak against a determined offline attack. Above about 120 bits the extra length stops buying you anything meaningful.
Is a passphrase weaker than a random string?
Per character, yes; overall, not necessarily. Six words from the 585-word list here is about 55 bits, and seven words is about 64 — far easier to type and remember than an equivalent random string. The critical requirement is that the words are chosen randomly by the generator. A phrase you thought of yourself has dramatically less entropy, because human word choice is highly predictable.
Are these passwords sent anywhere?
No. Generation happens entirely in your browser using crypto.getRandomValues, and no password, setting or result is transmitted or stored. There is no server involved at any point, which is why this page works offline once loaded.
Why does excluding repeated characters lower the entropy?
Because it removes valid possibilities from the space. If the attacker knows no character repeats, they can skip every candidate containing a repeat, which shrinks the search. The reduction is small, and readability is often worth it, but the readout reports the real figure rather than the flattering one.
Do the crack times account for password hashing?
They assume fast hashing, which is the pessimistic case. If the site stores passwords with bcrypt, scrypt or Argon2 at sensible parameters, real-world guessing is many orders of magnitude slower than shown. You cannot know which a given site uses, so planning against the fast-hash figure is the safe assumption.
Should I change strong passwords regularly?
Current guidance from NIST and the UK NCSC says no. Forced rotation pushes people toward predictable variations like adding a number to the end, which reduces security overall. Use a long unique password per site, store it in a password manager, and change it when there is a reason to believe it was exposed.
Is character substitution like a-for-@ useful?
Barely. Every cracking tool has applied those substitutions since the 1990s, so p@ssw0rd is treated as essentially the same guess as password. The security comes from unpredictability, not from decoration. Adding two more randomly chosen characters is worth more than any amount of leetspeak.

Related tools in Network & IP

Browse all Network & IP tools