phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

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]

Message-ID: <CAEw2jfwwHBxHDGA+KRCySYZsePK5q9+d-WfOxrB-H9sKaUe+dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:06:54 +0100
From: Patrick Mylund Nielsen <patrick@...rickmylund.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 01:42:42AM +0100, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:
> > Sorry, I do agree that it doesn't hurt to have e.g. a secret that is e.g.
> > on the disk instead of the database--I'm just worried that such secrets
> > would become central to the strength of the algorithm, i.e. developers
> rely
> > too much on the secret, and offline attacks become trivial if you have
> both
> > the secrets and the salts+digests.
>
> We're not going to consider such schemes seriously.  The call for
> submissions should be clear in this respect.  Isn't it clear now?
>

I just looked again, and yes. Thank you.

Content of type "text/html" skipped