Crack Time — how long does your password actually last?

Three things decide that number. You choose one of them. The site you signed up to chooses the other two — and theirs matter more.

1 · You choose — the password

2 · The site chooses — how it's stored

bcrypt work factorcost 12

Each +1 doubles the work — for the attacker and for the login page.

3 · The attacker chooses — the hardware

They already have your password file. This is the part you can't control at all.

The answer

—
—
Attack used—
Guesses needed—
Guesses per second—

Read the three panels again. You picked the password. Someone else picked the hash, and someone else picked the hardware. Change only panel 1 and the answer moves a bit; change only panel 2 and it moves by a factor of a billion. Password strength is mostly not the user's decision — which is why "use a strong password" is advice to the wrong person.

What about quantum computing?

The common belief: a quantum computer tries every password at once and picks out the right one. It doesn't. Nothing does. What Grover's algorithm gives you is a quadratic speedup on unstructured search — roughly the square root of the work. In the unit that matters, it halves the number of bits:

This password's search space—
Under Grover's algorithm—

Grover reduces the number of guesses, not the cost of each one. A deliberately slow hash multiplies every single guess, and that multiplication survives quantum untouched — so bcrypt's work factor is as useful against a quantum attacker as against a GPU. The defence you already had is the defence you'd still want.

The thing quantum genuinely breaks is a different thing. Shor's algorithm factors large numbers efficiently, which kills RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography: key exchange and digital signatures, not password hashes. That is what post-quantum standards such as ML-KEM exist for, and why "harvest now, decrypt later" is a real worry for recorded traffic. It is not a worry for the password file — there, the answer is simply more bits. There is no such thing as a "quantum-resistant password hash"; there is only a longer password and a higher work factor.

And no machine capable of any of this exists. The figures above are a theoretical ceiling that ignores error correction — currently thousands of physical qubits per usable logical one — and ignores that Grover parallelises badly, so an attacker cannot buy their way forward with more machines. Meanwhile the cloud farm in panel 3 is rentable this afternoon for about the price of lunch. Worry about these in that order.