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: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:58:30 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Native server relief support for password hashing in browsers

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:51:46PM -0800, Larry Bugbee wrote:
> By 'practical' I was thinking of the client passing an interim value of reasonable size, perhaps a hundred bytes or so.  If we are talking about many MBs to address the space part of the equation, it doesn't make sense for a client doing perhaps 7/8 of the work to pass an interim value to the server MBs in size.  A more "practical" approach would be for the algorithm to perhaps call for the client to expand memory to some large size but reduce it to a few hundred bytes for transmission, and if the algorithm calls for it, the server could also expand it to some high memory mode to complete the final 1/8 of the workload.   ...but such an approach would only be possible if the algorithm had some convenient points where the relevant data got periodically reduced to a more "manageable" size.

BTW, the "cost upgrades" happen to allow for this, even though it's not
their primary intended use.  The server could store an "upgraded" hash,
the client would compute a "non-upgraded" hash (or upgraded fewer times)
and the server would "upgrade" the client's provided hash, then compare
against what it had stored.  Drawback: with the granularity levels for
"cost upgrades" that are currently being considered, the server will
perform at least half the work (and, under most schemes, more than that).
So this isn't of much use for "server relief", but it works for removing
reusable plaintext password from the wire.

To support such previously unplanned for use, maybe the granularity of
"cost upgrades" should be less than 2x, although unfortunately this is
incompatible by keeping the intermediate m_cost's as powers of 2 (if the
original m_cost was a power of 2).

It would also be nice to enable or increase use of ROM along with a
"cost upgrade", but this adds complexity (unless this is forcibly done
along with the very first upgrade, and further upgrades either don't
expand the expected ROM size or expand it in some predefined manner).

> On another project I hashed a pswd using a salt value AND a second "salt" value being the userid (in lower case to remove ambiguity).  Now, an adversary somehow learning the salt cannot get started building a new table without building one for each of the userids.  Not perfect, but better than just a salt.

It sounds like your first salt wasn't randomly chosen for each new hash
computed, then.  Normally it would be.  It sounds like your first salt
was what I'd call a local parameter rather than a salt, to avoid
confusion (with password hashing, salts are normally assumed to be
likely-different for each hash).

> Now, you can extend that theme to two salts.  One is retained and used by the server in the traditional way.  A second salt could be used by a client when client-assitance is desired, or by the server if 100% server side.

This makes sense, and at least the server-side salts should be the usual
per-hash ones.  Unfortunately, a scheme like this no longer fits "cost
upgrades" misuse.  To have builtin support for it in a PHC candidate,
we'd have to add complexity.

> In the end, not all targets are worth a maximum effort, so I submit we should choose 2 or 3 PHCs based on differing levels of potential loss.

At this time, I see a need to choose two:

1. Optimal for native code and VM implementations (for VMs lacking
native code crypto primitives).  Thus, the same for C and e.g. JavaScript.
(JavaScript will likely move into category #2 below soon.)

2. Optimal for scripting languages that provide native code crypto
primitives (but wouldn't have our new hashing scheme available as such
native code primitive right away).  This should work well for PHP,
Python, Perl, Java.  (Yes, these languages are sometimes compiled to
native code.  In those cases, maybe #1 will work better.)

I think #1 can be made generic, suitable for many use cases.  Then
specialized cut-down implementations of it may be produced, with reduced
feature sets (and supporting subsets of the possible hash sub-types),
e.g. for use in Unix crypt(3).

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists