full-disclosure - Re: Introducing TGP...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:26:41 +0000
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "noloader@...il.com" <noloader@...il.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Introducing TGP...

>> The SHA256 hashing of the private key may not result in authenticity
>> assurances on the key (if I'm reading it correctly). I believe that's
>> an Athenticate-then-Encrypt scheme, and the details of the
>> interactions in AtE can be tricky.
>
>I had an opportunity to sleep on this, so here's my two cents. If I read the docs
>correctly, this construction is:
>
>ENC( HASH(m) || m )

No, that's not what I'm doing.  As I said in my message yesterday, I'm simply using the hash of the encrypted private key and the hash of the public key to see if the keys were tampered with while at rest.  
When loading the private key fob, a passphrase is required.  Before I prompt for the passphrase, I rehash the encrypted private key as stored, and compare that to the stored hash of the same.  If they are different, I flag an error.

I'll dive into your references though and see if any of it applies.  Thanks.

t

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/