bugtraq - Re: [R7-0035] VxWorks Authentication Library Weak Password Hashing

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100803155541.GA660@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:55:41 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: HD Moore <HD_Moore@...id7.com>
Cc: "bugtraq@...urityfocus.com" <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: [R7-0035] VxWorks Authentication Library Weak Password Hashing

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:55:05PM -0400, HD Moore wrote:
> -- Vendor Response:
> Wind River Systems has notified their customers of the issue and
> suggested that each downstream vendor replace the existing hash
> implementation with SHA512 or SHA256.

Like, without salting and stretching/strengthening?  That's not the best
suggestion.  I try to explain this without going into too much detail here:

http://www.openwall.com/articles/PHP-Users-Passwords#salting

At this time, vendors should implement either bcrypt (Blowfish-based):

http://www.openwall.com/crypt/

or SHA-crypt (usually the kind of it based on SHA-512, because that
makes better use of 64-bit CPUs):

http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/sha-crypt.html

There's almost no security difference between these two.  Both should
be replaced with something even better eventually - along the lines of
scrypt (adding more parallelism and configurable memory cost) - but
we're not ready for that yet (no peer-reviewed and agreed upon
implementation to recommend to vendors, even though some ideas in this
area have been floating around since 1990s).

Alexander