Message-ID: <CAOLP8p7Fn1piwT8Z7_wwyii8L_HAXuwRATy4ZzWyEqnzi6ePpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 05:08:05 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: KDF vs PHS?

Should we be calling our password hashing entries PHSs or KDFs?  I'm
not sure people know what to call these things, and that makes it
difficult to even discuss them.

I see the acronym PHS on the password hashing.net site twice, with no
definition, and Google doesn't seem to know it.  Is it Password
Hashing System?  If so, I like it better than KDF, and would propose
we start calling them that.  I see Scrypt calls itself a KDF, while
Catena calls itself a Password Hashing Framework, which seems
completely different, even though they are very similar and both very
different than PBKDF2 or HKDF.  In fact Scrypt calls PBKDF2 as a
lower-level primitive.  How can it also be a KDF?

KDF has the word Function in it, implying rather simple functionality,
and when I look at standards (or just "Informational" publications)
like PBKDF1, PBKDF2, and HKDF, I see definitions like this:

PRK = HMAC-Hash(salt, IKM)

These KDFs seem to be very basic cryptographic primitives, where we
can write them if a few lines of code and then debate them for years.
I don't see how they can be compared to Scrypt, accept from a user
point of view where he has to select one in a drop-down menu, and we
would like him to see Script right along PBKDF2-SHA256 and Bcrypt.

I wrote an upgraded version of HKDF yesterday.  I abused the name HKDF
yesterday and and called my function HKDF2 because I was too lazy to
come up with a new name, and HKDF2 does get across my intention that
it be an upgraded version of HKDF, rather than something completely
new.  HKDF2 unfortunately implies the authors came out with a new
version, so I think I'll have to come up with something else.
"Enhanced HKDF" or EHKDF?

That feels like a the right sort of label.  It took a day to think
about what functionality was needed, and a couple hours to code.  I
could be write the document tomorrow and be done, other than the
enormous effort at standardization which frankly I'm too lazy to
attempt.  I feel comfortable comparing it to other KDFs like PBKDF2.
However, I would not compare it to Scrypt.  It's something that a
password hashing system like Scrypt would call.

In fact, I'm hoping we can have a discussion about all calling the
same (or similar) KDF primitive as a pre-process to our password
hashing systems.

There... that felt good.  With different labels, I can discuss them in
the same sentence while making sense!  What would people think if I
propose that we all adopt a common KDF and call it as a pre-process to
our KDFs, and that we be allowed to "tweak" our KDFs to use a
different KDF during the KDF tweaking period of the KDF competition?
Because that's exactly what I'm proposing, and I'd like to be able to
say it and be understood at the same time.

Bill

Powered by blists - more mailing lists