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  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: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:30:23 -0800
From: Jeremi Gosney <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

On 2/16/2013 10:45 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On 2013-02-16, at 10:34 PM, Peter Gutmann <> wrote:
>> Jeffrey Goldberg <> writes:
>>> Basically, it would be really sucky to settle upon a winner and then have
>>> sites and services say, "we won't use that because we can't manage our
>>> verification costs the way we need to."
>> This is why I asked for an asymmetric option for the CFP, alongside the O( n )
>> everywhere for smaller sites we also need an O( 1 ) on the server, O( n ) on
>> the client for larger users, so some sort of trapdoor-function iterated-
>> hashing mechaism perhaps.
> I am neither a cryptographer nor a hacker, so forgive me if this question
> is naive. Any asymmetric scheme will require some secret key to be available to
> the legitimate verifier at verification time (right?). And if so, shouldn't we 
> expect that the same compromises that would get the password hashes would also get
> at that secret?

Correct. You have to assume that if the passwords are compromised, the
encryption key is as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists