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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:02:56 +0000
From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
CC: "fgrieu@...il.com" <fgrieu@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function

In the history of computing, nobody has ever needed a way to "hash passwords" per se.

What the world needs is a batteries-included and fool-resistant scheme for securely storing and validating password-based credentials.

- Marsh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@....org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
> Cc: fgrieu@...il.com
> Subject: RE: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function
> 
> Yes to all of that.  And the reason that I said "Again, it is all the more reason
> that there be a verification API behind which a platform-sensitive solution
> can be encapsulated."  What you give the compiler/script-engine is not what
> you get.  Sometimes cpu dependence and use of assembly code is the
> answer.  But that can all be somewhere behind the API.
> 
> I think Jeremy's observation about where the retrieval of the held key occurs
> and where the verification happens are all important.  I don't think that's so
> much an observation about the comparison as about where the verification
> occurs.  And if one is situated where the fetched key (correct-hash) value is
> observable, it strikes me that there is a lot more for the vulnerable party to
> worry about than this attack.
> 
> I agree that an attack of the scale required here going undetected and
> unthwarted suggests far more difficulty than just this vulnerability.
> 
> I am not proposing a change to the PHS API.  I am agreeing that a PHSverify( )
> interface is also desirable (whether or not a minimum requirement for a PHS
> submission).  A reference implementation should be carefully annotated to
> explain what is undesirable to put into production without addressing
> platform issues in the implementation and the threat model where situated
> in an application.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Grieu [mailto:fgrieu@...il.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 09:35
> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
> Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Suggestion: API should include a verifier function
> 
> [ ... ] I am skeptical at universality of a reference implementation of
> bulletproof hash-to-key comparison, and think a reference implementation
> (similar to Dennis E. Hamilton's second example) belongs to some reference
> example uses and test harness, also taking care of giving reference values for
> input in at least a practical subset of UTF-8 (and perhaps canonicalizing 16-bit
> unicode input).
> 
> Such reference would be quite useful, I think, and largely common to all
> submissions sticking to the default API:
> 
> |    int PHS(
>                      void*   out, size_t  outlen, // hash output
>                const void*    in, size_t   inlen, // password input
>                const void*  salt, size_t saltlen, // salt input
>             unsigned int  t_cost,                 // controlling of time
>             unsigned int  m_cost                  // ||||controlling of memory||
>             ); |
> 
> If that API needs extensions, I think the single most useful would be a control
> on how many CPUs should be usable (or perhaps the design challenge would
> bemaking that largely transparent).
> 
> 
>    Francois Grieu