Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 01:15:15 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Interest in specification of modular crypt format

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 04:46:48PM -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2015 2:52 PM, "Solar Designer" <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 09:40:50AM -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> > > Going with one-off encodings does look elegant,
> >
> > What do you mean by one-off here?  That no other hashing scheme would
> > use the same encoding?  Ideally, we'd come up with an encoding, whether
> > human-readable or not, that multiple schemes would adopt.
> 
> Unless I misread, it seemed like there was a suggestion to change the
> encoding per parameter. Parameters that have no valid 0 would be encoded
> where the first representable value is 1.

Oh, so by one-off you meant off-by-one.

Yes, that was one of my suggestions to be considered on top of the
compact B64 encoding for numeric parameters and especially if we allow
for defaults.  However, this isn't exactly changing the encoding per
parameter - this is having per parameter minimums that must be passed
into the encoding and decoding functions for individual numeric
parameters.  Robust implementations need such minimums anyway: for
checking that parameters are valid.  With this proposal, the minimums
happen to be enforced automatically, since there would simply be no way
to encode a value below the minimum for each given parameter.  Also,
deterministic encoding is achieved despite of allowing for defaults.

So you say this "makes the implementation significantly more error
prone".  Can you explain?  A possible error could be using an incorrect
minimum on a parameter, but this would fail the very first test (except
if the parameter is omitted and default value used in a given case)
since none of the possible values would be interpreted correctly.
Doesn't sound error prone to me, unless testing isn't performed at all.

I am not suggesting this for a human-readable encoding, as it goes
against the human-readable goal.  I am only suggesting this for use
along with a compact encoding.

> > > So my overall suggestion is make it easier on the developer using the
> > > API, rather than the one writing it. After all, there are going to be
> > > FAR more people writing a salt string then there will be writing the
> > > backend implementation. Optimize for the greater use-case...
> >
> > This makes sense to me.  We will need to provide an API for generating
> > salt strings (or "setting strings", as they're called for bsdicrypt and
> > on) anyway, but you have a valid point that, especially if the encoding
> > is simple for an application developer to understand, many developers
> > will be generating such strings on their own.
> >
> > For PHP and such, I think this pretty much implies the encoding will
> > also need to use RFC Base64.  Then it's just sprintf of some decimal
> > numbers and some base64()'s.  So my point remains that Thomas' proposed
> > encoding is neither here nor there.
> 
> Completely fair. I am less concerned around the encoding of the salt than
> the encoding and specification of the parameters. If a high level api is
> provided for generating the salt, then awesome. That helps a lot. Though I
> would still suggest keeping it readable.

Regarding crypt B64 vs. RFC Base64, Alexander Cherepanov has just
pointed out to me that there are in fact major issues with common
base64 decoders.  Thomas had hinted at that, but I didn't realize just
how bad things actually were.  So I withdraw that suggestion for now.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists