phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] A silly (?) consideration for script-friendly hashes

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:29:50 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: discussions <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] A silly (?) consideration for script-friendly hashes

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Larry Bugbee <bugbee@....com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Larry Bugbee <bugbee@....com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> just hash the domain in
>>>> with the salt before using it to hash a password
>>>
>>> Good idea, but why not also add userid?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because then you need some kind of trusted input so that scripts can't
>> just fake the userid.
>
> Sorry, and perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why that's a problem.
>

If the API is Hash(userid, domain, salt, password), then the browser
can only really verify "domain".  How is it going to check that
"userid" is correct?

--Andy

>
>> At that point, you might as well try to use a
>> protocol like SRP instead.
>>
>> --Andy
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC