> The small factor of trying different simple patterns pales in comparison.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's an infinite number of simple patterns that one could construct, and guessing the right one from the space of all possible patterns could alone exhaust any bruteforce capability. The characters of a random password could be taken as constants that define a simple pattern according to some rule, so you can have as much entropy in the space of such patterns as you have in a randomly generated alphanumeric password; in a manner of speaking, the pattern is part of a password and by itself contributes to entropy (as long as we're talking about patterns with long enough outputs that different patterns don't have much overlap in what they spit out).

If the attacker doesn't have a huge library or eof simple patterns, then making an unbreachable passwords is very simple: just make up a new pattern, they probably won't guess it.

(Dang, now I'm tempted to make a game out of this: write a pattern generator, post a set of parameters in the public along with the md5 of the resulting pattern, and award some monies to the first person to figure it out.)

> The attacker doesn't need to know how many words. They would try 1, then 2, then 3, etc.

Sure. At what point would they exhaust their bruteforce capability or decide that they've probably got the wrong pattern and go for another one?

I hope the next pattern they choose isn't one to four random English dictionary words followed by the number of letters in the resulting phrase, expressed in binary using X for 1 and Y for 0!

> Capitalization and tiny modifications are only worth a few bits.

Five times a few bits quickly adds up though.

> Your password example is a lot stronger. But even then I don't know if it's better than a full 32 random characters. That would mean every two characters in your password have more randomness than a completely random character with no patterns. That might be true.

It's pretty hard to say since I made it up on the spot instead of randomly generating it after specifying a pattern, yeah.

But if you had just five words in different languages and you had to guess the language for each, that is quite a bit of entropy. Not enough to prevent any sort of brute force attack, but we're talking a few dozen bits at least. A quick google search shows that there are around 4000 human languages with at least 1000 speakers (https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/how-many-spoken-languages), that'd be 12 bits per word. You could guess it's got to be one of the most common 100 languages and you'd miss three languages that I used (Norwegian, Finnish, Esperanto), according to this list of top languages by native speakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of....

Of course not all words are unique across all languages, so a dictionary attack against my pattern could pick the wrong language for some word and still score the right dictionary entry.

Inflection, in the case of Finnish, proves interesting because there are ways to stack different endings and thus you can have hundreds or thousands of variations of a word, by the book. Slang and regional dialects only add to it.