There are 10,000 possible four-digit PINs, from 0000 through 9999, when leading zeroes are allowed. If people selected them uniformly at random, every PIN would have a 0.01% chance of appearing. The figures below come from Nick Berry’s DataGenetics analysis of exposed credentials, not a representative survey of PINs currently in use.
Real users do not choose PINs uniformly. They favor dates, years, repeated digits, sequences, keypad shapes, and numbers with personal or cultural meaning. That bias is why 1234 appeared far more often than a random PIN in Berry’s analysis—and why the often-repeated claim that 8068 is “the least-used PIN” needs qualification.
What the ranking actually measures
The commonly cited ranking comes from Nick Berry’s DataGenetics analysis of approximately 3.4 million four-digit PINs found in exposed password tables, credential dumps, and security breaches. It is useful evidence of human PIN-selection habits, but it is not a representative survey of every bank card, phone, payment terminal, door lock, or security system.
Those populations differ. A banking system may enforce retry limits and fraud monitoring. A phone may allow only a small number of attempts before a delay or wipe. An exposed website-password dataset may have no comparable protection. Therefore, the percentages below describe the analyzed dataset—not the probability that a randomly selected person currently uses each PIN.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
The 20 most common four-digit PINs
The following frequencies are reported in the published ranking of Berry’s dataset.
| Rank | PIN | Reported frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1234 | 10.713% |
| 2 | 1111 | 6.016% |
| 3 | 0000 | 1.881% |
| 4 | 1212 | 1.197% |
| 5 | 7777 | 0.745% |
| 6 | 1004 | 0.616% |
| 7 | 2000 | 0.613% |
| 8 | 4444 | 0.526% |
| 9 | 2222 | 0.516% |
| 10 | 6969 | 0.512% |
| 11 | 9999 | 0.451% |
| 12 | 3333 | 0.419% |
| 13 | 5555 | 0.395% |
| 14 | 6666 | 0.391% |
| 15 | 1122 | 0.366% |
| 16 | 1313 | 0.304% |
| 17 | 8888 | 0.303% |
| 18 | 4321 | 0.293% |
| 19 | 2001 | 0.290% |
| 20 | 1010 | 0.285% |
In Berry’s analysis, 1234 accounted for approximately 10.7% of the sample. The top three—1234, 1111, and 0000—made up approximately 18.6%. The 20 entries above represented more than one quarter of the observed records, according to the Guardian’s account of the analysis.
Why these PINs are popular
The list is not random noise. It reflects several predictable ways people construct short numeric secrets:
- Sequences: 1234 and 4321 are easy to remember and enter.
- Repeated digits: 1111, 7777, and the other repeated-digit values require little memory.
- Repeated pairs: 1212, 6969, 1122, 1313, and 1010 use a simple rhythm.
- Years: Values such as 2000, 2001, and other four-digit years resemble meaningful dates. The original report found that all 19xx values fell within the top 20% of PIN frequencies.
- Dates: Birthdays and anniversaries appear in both MMDD and DDMM formats, depending on the user’s regional convention.
- Keypad shapes: 2580 traces a vertical line down the middle of a standard telephone keypad. Other geometric paths can be just as memorable.
- Cultural references: Values such as 1984, 0007, and 0070 can be selected because they have recognizable meanings.
These patterns and the year, date, and keypad observations are described in the Guardian’s summary of Berry’s findings. Convenience is the common thread. A PIN that is quick to recall and quick to type is often also quick for a guessing algorithm to prioritize.
Was 8068 really the least-used PIN?
8068 was the least frequent PIN in Berry’s analyzed dataset. It appeared 25 times in approximately 3.4 million records—about 0.000744% of that dataset, according to Berry’s original analysis.
That is a much narrower statement than “8068 is the least-used PIN in the world.” The source was a historical collection of exposed credentials, not a live census of PINs. It cannot establish the least-used PIN among current bank cards, smartphones, access-control systems, or other applications.
There is also an important security problem with publishing any supposed “best” PIN. Once 8068 became well known, an attacker could add it to a prioritized guessing list. Its historical rarity does not make it secret, and its frequency could change as people copy the recommendation.
How many guesses cover common PIN choices?
Berry’s original cumulative-frequency analysis found that 61 guesses covered approximately one-third of the observed PINs, while 426 guesses covered approximately half. These are empirical results for that exposed-PIN dataset, not a universal property of PIN systems.
They do not mean an attacker can always access an account with 61 or 426 attempts. Whether those guesses matter depends on the system’s controls:
- How many failed attempts are allowed?
- Does the system impose increasing delays?
- Does it lock the account or require recovery?
- Can the attacker observe the PIN being entered?
- Is the PIN reused on another device or service?
- Can the attacker test guesses offline, without a server enforcing limits?
A common PIN is dangerous primarily because it receives a high priority in an attack. A rare PIN is not automatically strong if someone can watch it being entered, obtain it from another breach, or try unlimited guesses.
Rank #3
Are six-digit PINs safer?
Mathematically, a six-digit numeric PIN has 1,000,000 possible values, compared with 10,000 for a four-digit PIN. That expands the theoretical search space by 100 times. Practical security is more complicated.
A 2020 smartphone study collected user-chosen four- and six-digit unlock PINs from 1,220 participants. Against attackers limited to 10, 30, or 100 guesses, six-digit PINs provided little or no improvement in that study and sometimes performed worse because participants selected more predictable six-digit values. These findings are from the 2020 smartphone PIN study.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The result does not mean six-digit PINs are useless. A randomly generated six-digit PIN is substantially harder to exhaustively guess than a randomly generated four-digit PIN. The point is that length alone does not overcome predictable human choices, weak lockout settings, or PIN reuse.
Do PIN blocklists solve the problem?
The same study examined iOS-style lists containing 274 four-digit PINs and 2,910 six-digit PINs. These relatively small lists provided little or no benefit against throttled guessing. Larger lists improved resistance but also increased the chance of frustrating users who selected a blocked value.
The study estimated that blocking roughly 10% of the PIN space offered a practical balance between security and usability. A blocklist is therefore useful as one control, but it should not replace retry limits, delays, secure recovery, and user education.
How to choose a safer four-digit PIN
- Use a randomly generated value. Do not pick a birth date, year, address fragment, repeated digit, sequence, or keypad shape.
- Do not use a PIN from a public “least common” list. A published rarity ranking is an attacker resource.
- Use a different PIN for each purpose. A phone unlock code, bank PIN, alarm code, and access code should not be interchangeable.
- Prefer six digits when the system supports it and you can choose randomly. The extra space helps most when the value is genuinely unpredictable.
- Protect the entry process. Shield the keypad, check for cameras or shoulder surfers, and avoid entering a PIN where others can see the screen.
- Enable system protections. Use retry limits, automatic delays, biometric unlocking where appropriate, and remote-lock or erase features.
For a four-digit PIN, the goal is not to find a magic number. It is to avoid obvious human patterns and prevent an attacker from getting enough attempts to test guesses.
Bottom line
Berry’s analysis of approximately 3.4 million exposed records ranked 1234 first, followed by 1111 and 0000. The same analysis found that 8068 occurred least often, but only within that historical dataset. It is not a universally verified least-used PIN and should not be treated as a “perfect” choice.
Use a randomly generated PIN, keep it unique, and rely on throttling and lockout protections. A PIN’s position in an old ranking is less important than whether the attacker can observe it, reuse it from another breach, or try it repeatedly without consequences.
FAQ
What is the most common four-digit PIN?
1234 was the most common PIN in the widely cited DataGenetics analysis, appearing in approximately 10.713% of its roughly 3.4 million exposed records. That percentage does not represent every PIN currently in use.
What is the least-used four-digit PIN?
8068 was the least frequent value in Berry’s historical dataset, appearing 25 times, or about 0.000744% of the records. There is no verified universal ranking of current PIN use across all devices and services.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Is 8068 a secure PIN?
Not especially. Its public identification makes it a candidate for attackers’ prioritized lists. A PIN should not be selected because it appeared rarely in an old, breach-derived dataset.
How many possible four-digit PINs are there?
There are 10,000 values, from 0000 through 9999, assuming leading zeroes are accepted.
Is a six-digit PIN always safer than a four-digit PIN?
No. It has a larger theoretical space—1,000,000 combinations—but predictable user choices and weak guess controls can reduce the practical benefit. A randomly generated six-digit PIN is stronger than a randomly selected four-digit PIN.
The Bottom Line
Use a random, unique PIN—not a famous “rare” PIN. 8068 was only the least frequent value in one historical dataset, while common choices such as 1234, 1111, and dates are easy for attackers to prioritize. System throttling, lockout, privacy during entry, and non-reuse matter as much as the digits themselves.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
