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: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:15:44 -0400
From: Watson Ladd <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function

This isn't necessary: a non-constant time comparison at worst reveals the
hash, which doesn't give an attacker
enough information to break a password anyway if we do our jobs right.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Tony Arcieri <>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Tony Arcieri <>wrote:
>> you'd provide a user-supplied one as input, and verify via a guaranteed
>> constant time comparison whether or not it's correct.
> Oops, not quite what I meant to say there, but I'm sure you got the idea ;)
> To clarify: you would pass in the hash/salt "on file" along with the
> alleged password, and the function would return whether or not the provided
> password matches the supplied hash/salt. The arguments are, otherwise, the
> same as the hashing function.
> As an API strawman, if this is our hashing function:
>     PHS(out, outlen, in, inlen, salt, saltlen, t_cost, m_cost)
> we might consider:
>    PHS_VERIFY(hash, hashlen, in, inlen, salt, saltlen, t_cost, m_cost)
> (I'm not particularly married to the name "PHS_VERIFY", so please bikeshed
> away ;)
> --
> Tony Arcieri

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists