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  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 16:55:23 +0000
From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function

It still depends on the work factor, the resources of the attacker, and most of all the strength of the user-chosen password.

Even if the administrator’s chosen parameters were extremely conservative, the exposure of the hashes could constitute a data breach which requires disclosure, notification of users, etc.

+1 on the ‘define separate functions for generation and validation’ plan. But it does seem like that could be done mostly independently of the design of the hash function itself.


-          Marsh


From: Watson Ladd [mailto:watsonbladd@...il.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:16 AM
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
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.

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists