phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function

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: <85DCA0D8-3505-403A-8DC0-995CEEFC437E@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:18:37 -0500
From: Matthew Green <matthewdgreen@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function

I think separating the Generate and Verify into formally distinct algorithms is a nice idea, and it's consistent with the way (some) people define MACs. It also allows for types of randomized hashing that wouldn't be possible using a single algorithm.

Matt

On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com> wrote:

> 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


Content of type "text/html" skipped