phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHC output specifics

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: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:52:34 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC output specifics

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com> wrote:

> ·         A recommendation for string encoding (e.g., UTF-8 code points)

i would recommend the algo specification be oblivious to the encoding,
and treat the password as binary. the standardization of a certain use
case must deal with the encoding issues. the rationale is: the
algorithm does not need to know, there is no difference from its point
of view. use cases are so different, unifying has very little benefit
and might have high cost.

> ·         A standalone credential (hash value, salt, metadata, etc) format.
> Probably this would be binary with a standard Base64 encoding.

this is tangential to the password hashing, and should be dealt with
separately. in fact, such a serialization can be standardized
independent of the used hash function.

> ·         Conservative recommended default values for these parameters and
> advice on other reasonable choices.

i think this turned out very wrong with bcrypt, which comes with the
recommendation of 10, which most people carelessly adopted, despite on
today's hardware it is rather small. i would suggest to have
recommended values in terms of milliseconds and total memory
percentage or other vague figure, as opposed to actual parameters.
also there should be a relatively easy way of determining how the
parameters translate to milliseconds and megabytes, or other
resources.

> expressed logarithmically.

i don't see the benefit of logarithmic parametrization. at a glance,
it looks smart, but in fact it adds nothing. specifying the actual
number instead is simpler, and i doubt that you will ever need numbers
over 2 billion. one can raise the counterargument that on some limited
systems, like 8 bit or 16 bit systems, it might be a problem. not a
huge problem though, as the value must be converted back to a number
inside the function anyway. you can't escape handling a counter of the
necessary size. so why not take it directly as parameter?

on the other hand, i see the downside of logarithmic parametrization.
on a server, it is valuable to fine-tune the cost parameter, 100%
increments might be impractical. of course one can devise an encoding
that allows for finer grain control but still exponential (some sort
of mini-floating point), but this sounds a little bit overkill, puts
unnecessary burden on the implementor of the hash function.

therefore my recommendation is to take the most natural parameters,
and let the caller side or the use case standardization decide how it
chooses, limits and stores parameters.