phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Client-side hashing (was side-channel stuff)

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: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:46:58 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Client-side hashing (was side-channel stuff)

yOn Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Sascha Schmidt <
sascha.schmidt@...-weimar.de> wrote:

> 2015-04-25 0:40 GMT+02:00 Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com>:
> > h = fastHash(password, salt)
> > for u = 1 to upgrade
> > {
> >   h = fastHash(slowHash(h, t_cost, m_cost))
> >   t_cost = increaseTCost(t_cost)
> >   m_cost = increaseMCost(m_cost)
> > }
> > return encrypt(h, key) // HSM? :)
> You are totally right. I don't know how I missed this. The most
> embarrassing thing is, that this would already be possible with
> Catena. The only thing missing is the server-side finalization with
> encryption.
> I hope I haven't caused any confusion with my previous mail.
>

In this case, can everything but the last step be done client-side?
Ideally, the salt is a secret known only to the server and client, where
the client preferably stores it in a security key of some sort.

I feel like we should prototype a framework to support something like this.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped