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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:03:08 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PHC] scripting memory (not so) high

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:37:49AM -0600, Steve Thomas wrote:
> > On January 9, 2014 at 10:32 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> >
> > Disclaimer: there may be bugs in the smhkdf code (e.g., some off-by-ones
[...]
> Found two:
> Line 13: $m_cost = floor(($blocksize + 63) / 64);
> Line 22: $mod = ($m_cost * 64) - $blocksize + 1;

Thanks!  (I haven't checked yet.)

> BTW I was just working on a scripting language hash.
[...]
>     for ($i = 0; $i < $m_cost; $i++)
>     {
>         $h = hash('sha512', $h, true);
>         $mem = $h . $mem;
>     }

Wouldn't appending to $mem be faster than prepending?

>     // Hash mem $t_cost+4 times
>     $ctx = hash_init('sha512');
>     for ($i = 0; $i < $t_cost + 4; $i++)
>     {
>         hash_update($ctx, $mem);
>     }
>     return hash_final($ctx);

This is not sequential memory-hard!  This allows for TMTO that benefits
attackers with ASICs by more than a constant factor.  Specifically, on
each of the $t_cost + 4 iterations, the attacker may recompute and use
the whole $mem one block at a time, without storing them.  This only
doubles the effort of that loop (and eliminates the first loop), and it
reduces the memory needs from $m_cost to a small constant.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists