phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] How important is salting really?

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, 12 Dec 2014 23:39:06 -0800
From: epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] How important is salting really?

On 12/12/2014 11:33 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
>> On December 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM Ben Harris <ben@...rr.is> wrote:
>>
>>  On 13 December 2014 at 11:00, Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com
>> <mailto:steve@...tu.com> > wrote:
>>    > > 
>>>    P.S. MD5("deliciously-salty-" || pw) is from an infamous article that
>>> gets salt
>>>    wrong :). It's near the top of Google when searching for rainbow tables.
>>>  >   
>>  Joking aside, if you have a unique "deliciously-salty-", truncate the MD5 to
>> 24 bits, and implement a good rate limiting system you'd probably have a
>> pretty secure system. Good enough against online attacks, but not so good that
>> you are giving up someone's password if you leak hashes. [weak passwords are
>> still weak, and leaks from multiple sources for the same UID would eventually
>> give up a password]
>>
> Wait, I don't even know why I argued that way. I can't think of one case where a
> severely truncated hash equals more security. Oh wait does my keyboard have a
> breathalyzer—nope.


Well, we already know that you only use Twitter when you're drunk. So it
only stands to reason that you only reply to mailing lists when you've
been drinking as well :P