phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] How important is salting really?

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

Message-ID: <548ACDB0.2020201@bindshell.nl>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 03:12:48 -0800
From: epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] How important is salting really?

On 12/12/2014 2:48 AM, Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Ben Harris wrote:
>
>> On 12 December 2014 at 17:53, epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl> wrote:
>>       Thus the salt table shrinks with each successful
>>       crack, and the effective speed of the attack increases with each
>>       eliminated salt.
>>
>>
>> A rather confusing way to describe things. If we are attacking all
>> password
>> hashes, one password at a time (from the most common down). Then each
>> time we
>> find a match, the pool of hashes decreases and subsequent passwords
>> can be
>> search faster.
>
> Ah, now I see what epixoip means. I don't think, this comes even close
> to a justification for *not* using salts.

I didn't say it was a justification not to use salts. I said the
opposite. I said salts were necessary, but insufficient on their own. In
other words, an algorithm must not rely on solely upon salting. In other
other words, something like sha256(s.p) is insufficient.