phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Gambit code

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2142642603.192570.1397494517811.open-xchange@email.1and1.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:55:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Gambit code

> On April 14, 2014 at 11:36 AM Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The optimizer will probably remove this call to memset anyway :-)
>
> I thought about reporting this as a bug in the various entries that try to
> clear a password or memory using memset, but it still conveys the intent of
> the author.  When we get down to just a few entries left standing, I think
> the authors should tweak their entries to do a better job clearing memory.

I like my way :)
...
        // Clean up
        // TODO: find a secure wipe function
        memset(data, 0, sizeof(data));
        memset(key,  0, sizeof(key));
        memset(mem,  0, sizeof(uint32_t) * DATA_SIZE * memSize);
...

P.S. I am aware that my function "sha512Block()" doesn't clear sensitive
data.