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: <CAEw2jfyVt52wNjUszf=EB0o2KySEjUx0=2MyuyqzcE8XnNkD4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:21:41 +0100
From: Patrick Mylund Nielsen <patrick@...rickmylund.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg <Jeffrey@...dmark.org>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Any "large verifiers" on the panel?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM, <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Marsh Ray wrote:
>
>  While I'm not at liberty to disclose the exact number of password
>> authentications we process, I can say that it really comes down to deciding
>> how much CPU load you're willing to put on the system. Many systems, you
>> specify a password only once to login, and everything after that is done
>> with cookies. So even a very high work factor setting may not represent a
>> noticeable hit on overall server load.
>>
>
> Ouch! So I log in once at your site (*), and soon close the connection.
> But, since one or more cookies are left on my computer, any trojan that
> later takes over my computer will be able to log in at your site, again?
>
> That is really poor security, and a good reason to delete cookies very
> frequently, I think!
>
>
Yeah, but this is not avoidable if you have any kind of session mechanism,
and whether it uses a memory-hard function or not. You can't protect
against somebody taking over a user's machine. You can protect against
somebody taking over a server and trivially gathering all its users'
passwords.


>
>  Another anecdote comes from Moxie Marlinspike when he was at Twitter. We
>> were discussing memory-hard password hashing functions, and his response
>> was to the effect of "yeah we would definitely not be able to handle near
>> as many simultaneous auths as we do now if the shared memory bus of the
>> multicore server were constantly saturated."
>>
>
> Indeed, that is an issue for memory-hard password hashing functions.(**)
>
> Actually, the current way of applying a password-hashing function by the
> server is sub-optimal, at least.
>
> Ideally, given a (slow, memory-hard, or whatver) function F and a
> cryptographic hash function H, the password hash should be X :=
> H(F(password, salt, ...)). Now, the client could compute Y := F(password,
> salt, ...), and the server would only have to compute H(Y). So the server
> would neither need many CPU cycles, nor much memory -- and still, password,
> cracking would not get any simpler.
>
> The only assumption is that F cannot be so slow or memory-demanding that
> it would not run reasonably fast on the client at hand.
>
>
Yes, client would be great, but as it is, most applications (i.e. web
applications) don't have a way to run an efficient KDF client-side.
Hopefully some subset of the functions PHC selects could be added to e.g.
the WebCrypto API.

Content of type "text/html" skipped