netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] random: use SipHash in place of MD5

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9pip1w3fYKKZ==RUYss+GZmQ1w3kjT4Lgvkxi_=SyK+wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:23:59 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] random: use SipHash in place of MD5

Hi Andy,

> Agreed.  A simpler contruction would be:
>
> chaining++;
> output = H(chaining, secret);
>
> And this looks a whole lot like Ted's ChaCha20 construction.

In that simpler construction with counter-based secret rekeying and in
Ted's ChaCha20 construction, the issue is that every X hits, there's a
call to get_random_bytes, which has variable performance and entropy
issues. Doing it my way with it being time based, in the event that
somebody runs ` :(){ :|:& };:`, system performance doesn't suffer
because ASLR is making repeated calls to get_random_bytes every 128 or
so process creations. In the time based way, the system performance
will not suffer.

Jason