phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Terminology goals

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:00:05 +0200
From: Per Thorsheim <per@...rsheim.net>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: "maray@...rosoft.com" <maray@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Terminology goals

SPS - Secure Password Storage?

(Then we can do the SPSv2 competition in 2015-2017...)

Fully agree that finding a simple and pretty much unused phrase that clearly stands out from the crowd. In a way I've got used to PHC or PWDHC already...	

Best regards,
Per Thorsheim


Den 9. sep. 2013 kl. 21:33 skrev Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>:

> When I do a web search for 'slowest hash function', I get a mixture of results. Some are recommending bcrypt and scrypt, some are benchmarks comparing MD5, SHA-1, and SHA-2, etc.
> 
> Speaking as a guy who was a corporate developer in a past life, making a living writing data entry dialog boxes for databases:
> 
> One of the best gifts our project could give to the community is a new term which unambiguously embodies the security properties needed for the storage and verification of password-based credentials. A developer can write this term on a napkin, search for it when he gets back to his desk, and have the best chance of finding an implementation for his platform that lets him succeed in doing the right thing.
> 
> The simpler, the less ambiguous, and the more widely-accepted this term becomes, the more applications will store their passwords-based credentials securely.
> 
> - Marsh
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 7:26 AM
>> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHC] Terminology goals
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:42:40PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
>>> What about calling them slow hashes?
>> 
>> FWIW, this is what we've been calling them in John the Ripper development
>> and usage context for a few years now, because we needed to differentiate
>> "fast" and "slow" hashes (of the hash types that JtR
>> supports) when talking about program structure, optimizations, usage
>> instructions (need to bother avoiding occasional duplicate candidate
>> passwords or not, etc).
>> 
>> A "slow" hash might not include a builtin salting mechanism (although in
>> practice they almost always do), whereas for PHC this is a requirement.
>> Yet I am fine with the "slow hashes" term.
>> 
>> That said, in PHC context, we've already started using "PHS", so perhaps we
>> should stick with that.
>> 
>> Alexander
>