phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Coding of the in[inlen] array for PHS( )

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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:54:27 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Coding of the in[inlen] array for PHS( )

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 05:12:25PM -0500, Daniel Franke wrote:
> I would amend the recommendation by explicit calling for some test
> vectors containing embedded null bytes.

Note that some of the submissions will be intended for implementation
in scripting languages, whereas the C implementation of them will be to
fit the PHC terms (allow for uniform testing of all submissions, etc.),
as well as to ensure correctness of the scripts (e.g., I made a C
implementation of phpass "portable" hashes for that very reason).

Yes, PHS() is defined to accept inlen, but in many scripting languages
and in many other APIs NULs may be problematic anyway.

Should PHS() support embedded NULs even when the password hashing
scheme's primary implementation - one intended for actual use - does not
support embedded NULs?  Well, perhaps it should...

Alexander