Proof-reading would be nice
I wouldn't mind the occasional grammatical, orthographical, lexical or other mistakes, but 6.5 in such a short article tops it. I'm not a native speaker, but would say my English is good enough to spot these. A bit more journalistic care would be good. Elsewhere I saw those it's/its, their/they're again...
[ ] meaning that was missing, { } meaning that was too much.
1) Number 496 is a ?mistress? although I don?t [know] if the owners...
2) ...about 50% of passwords are passwords [that] are ?based on names of a family member...
3) I have far to[o] many for that..
4) He also avoid passwords hints such as boyhood dog...
5) I tried {a} something called a secure login called vidoop... -- nice doubling up
6) Some of the advice is {is} obvious, but worth repeating.
I said 6.5 mistakes above, because I'm not 100% sure about this one:
6.5) ...although I don?t if the owners lean toward kept women or...
