phc-discussions - catena.c

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140128031714.GA958@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:17:14 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: catena.c

Christian,

I guess the 128 constant in the snippet below was meant to be H_LEN,
since otherwise behavior will differ for H_LEN != 64, and it could even
be over-read beyond the malloc()'ed memory.

For the current H_LEN == 64, which is valid for both BLAKE2b and
SHA-512, this change is obviously a no-op.

diff --git a/src/catena.c b/src/catena.c
index 5486709..8c84f82 100644
--- a/src/catena.c
+++ b/src/catena.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ void LBRH(const uint8_t x[H_LEN], const uint8_t lambda,
     __Hash2(r + (c-1)*H_LEN, H_LEN, r, H_LEN, r);
     p = r + H_LEN;
     for (i = 1; i < c; i++, p += H_LEN) {
-      __Hash1(p - H_LEN, 128, p);
+      __Hash1(p - H_LEN, 2 * H_LEN, p);
     }
   }

Alexander