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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:20:14 -0600
From: havoc <>
Subject: Random Hash Functions

Here's a quick idea for PHC, that you're all free to expand on:

Generating the hash:

Input: The password P.
1. Generate a random salt S.
2. Generate a random hash algorithm F.
3. D = H(S, F, P).
3. Return <D, S, F>.

Checking the hash:

Input: <D, S, F> and test password P'.
4. Return D == H(S, F, P').

Where H(S, F, P) is some iterated stretching function that involves the
random hash function F, a well-tested hash function (e.g. SHA3), and
whatever else you want, in each iteration.

The idea is that every hash would have not only a random salt, but a
random hash algorithm. By "random hash algorithm", I don't mean simply a
random hash function which you could easily get by prefixing a random
salt, I mean really generating random *code*.

This has interesting implications for hardware cracking. The crackers
will have to either,

1. Create custom hardware for each hash they want to crack, or
2. Build lots of small processors that can of compute any of the random
hash algorithms.

Currently, the best way to do it is probably to use an FPGA with method
(1). To counter this, it should be very time consuming to find (either
by hand or by automated process) an FPGA implementation of any F, that
is faster than a well-designed general processor (method (2)).

The random hash algorithm F should be encoded in a simple, standard,
machine language, and either interpreted by the host system or
translated into the host system's native instructions (safely!) before

Of course, generating a random *secure* cryptographic hash function is
NOT easy, since it takes years of design and testing to become confident
in just one. However, except for very valuable hashes, attackers
probably won't spend a lot of time cryptanalyzing them, so it's OK for
them to be not-so-secure.

Does anyone know of existing similar work?

Taylor (was: Havoc)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists