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: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:51:07 +0200
From: Thomas Pornin <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Makwa is broken given p and q

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:21:01AM -0500, Steve Thomas wrote:
> I was picking an absurd number to prove a point that apparently was
> known. I guess the escrow should have tipped me off that we don't see
> eye to eye on what we think is secure.

It IS secure -- I am just going to the end of the logic.

The CFP called for a desirable feature (among others): "For example, one
may design a scheme that is slow to evaluate except on a server given
some server-specific shortcut."

It so happens that if such a "shortcut" exists, then it can be
leveraged, by definition, into a much faster attack. The whole core
assumption of PHC and password-hashing functions is that dictionary
attacks work, which is why we cannot just use a simple MD5 and be done
with it. I am then following that idea to its unavoidable conclusion: if
a "shortcut" exists, then it is almost equivalent to a free password
recovery for whoever can use it. So I am calling it "escrow" because
that's what it is.

If you think of the shortcut (or "fast path") as a kind of escrow, then
the correct terminology is that of asymmetric encryption. A password
hashing function with a possible shortcut really is deterministic
asymmetric encryption:

 - If you don't know the private key, you can still encrypt the
   password. To _verify_ a password, you also encrypt it, and check that
   you get the same value -- that's the point of the encryption being

 - If you do know the private key, then you can decrypt, which is all the
   escrow or shortcut that you may need.

The beauty of the thing is that the private key needs not be known to
anybody for the function to operate. In Makwa terms, if you generate the
modulus N and simply forget the factors p and q (you don't save them
anywhere), then you can hash passwords and verify passwords and do
everything that you do with any other password hashing function. And the
p and q factors then risk no exposure at all since they are not stored

If, on the other hand, you want to benefit from the "shortcut" in your
system, then, as explained above, you have to be aware of what that
power is: it really is an escrow private key. You must keep it safely,
like any other private key.

The important point is that there is no absolute requirement for the
shortcut power to be held by anybody. If you are ready to do without the
shortcut (and if you envision any other password hashing function in PHC
then you are ready, since none of them offers such a feature), then you
can achieve perfectly secure storage of the private key (p and q) by not
storing it at all.

Thus, Makwa is no more broken than, say, RSA encryption -- with the
added benefit that when the private key is lost, RSA becomes useless,
while Makwa functionality is still intact.

As a side note, I must point out that the _other_ feature of Makwa
(namely, the delegation feature) does not need the p and q factors. If
nobody knows them, delegation still works unabated. This really is

> I stand corrected, not broken, but my opinion is this is bad.

There IS one bad thing: as explained above, if you don't want to hear
about any escrow or shortcut, and be sure that nobody can ever access
the p and q factors, then you must "forget" them just after having
generated them and multiplied them together to compute the modulus. This
is easy enough to do (the generation tools provided with the reference
implementations of Makwa do just that), but there is no way to do it

By this I mean that though I can generate a modulus, I have no method to
convince _you_ that I did not keep the p and q factors around. This is a
problem for which cryptography has not yet found a reasonable solution
(there is a published construction, but it results in a very large
modulus). If such a method was known, I would have applied it, and it
would have resulted in a modulus that could be hardcoded and used
everywhere in the whole world.

Therefore, I turned to the next best thing, which is custom modulus
generation. That is, if you want a modulus such that you are sure that
the p and q factors have not been saved anywhere, then just generate it
yourself. It will be your own modulus. It can be used for hashing all
the passwords of people who trust YOU.

	--Thomas Pornin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists