phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] New password hashing entry: PolyPassHash

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: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:11:15 +0000
From: Peter Maxwell <peter@...icient.co.uk>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: santiago torres <sat417@...dents.poly.edu>
Subject: Re: [PHC] New password hashing entry: PolyPassHash

On 25 March 2014 13:47, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@...il.com>wrote:

> Am i being dense or does this "meta technique" increases the load on the
> attacker only if he doesn t also get the shares ?
>
>
Justin has a pdf paper on the github link.  Part of his threat model is
that the attacker cannot read arbitrary memory on the server.  He discusses
what he proposes are advantages of the secret sharing scheme over storing a
simple master secret in memory.

Personally, while I think the idea is really rather novel, I'm not
convinced the advantages over storing a single master secret in memory are
particularly significant in most contexts.  It's hardly uncommon for a
security team to manage a small list of "master" keys.  Having said that,
the PHC is currently running because as a species we can't convince people
to pick non-trivial passwords, so in that light the secret sharing scheme
to store passwords may arguably be reasonable.

Content of type "text/html" skipped